Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,899 Excellent


About dexterm

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Previous Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

3,753 profile views
  1. >>The report was by 18 Arab countries ...the report was written by two academics with specialized knowledge in international law. >>Consider, the jewish populations of those countries which were kicked out as revenge for losing the 1948 war and the declaration of the state of Israel. Would they be allowed to return to their homes? ...if true, then blame the Arab countries, not the Palestinians. Why should Palestinians be the scapegoats for others? I would suggest that Jews who can genuinely prove they were involuntarily expelled from anywhere should receive compensation. The rest of your post is an old chestnut nothing to do with the present topic.
  2. My posts are completely on topic. Please explain how I am deflecting, or are you just using slogans to distract from the fact that you refuse to address the issues in the OP. The best form of defense of course is to accuse your opponent of precisely your own deflectionary tactics. Sneaky! The OP report points out how Israel uses its immigration laws to create an artificial Jewish majority, by allowing unlimited Jewish immigration while denying Palestinians the same right. ...Are we still on the same on topic page, Morch?'s a Tale of Two returnees. Consider if you would two potential candidates.. The Jewish Candidate need not even regard himself as a Jew need not observe any religious traditions needs only to have a Jewish grandmother need never to have set eyes on Israel before his ancestors? have been absent for 2000 years need have no direct ancestry to ancient Israel after millenia of intermarriage and conversion may only have recently converted to Judaism by marriage such as Ivanka Trump. looks more European Caucasian than Semitic The Palestinian Candidate born in Israel may still have keys and title deeds to his confiscated home and land lives in the West Bank in a refugee camp a few short miles away from his ancestral home , but forbidden to visit there may have family in Israel regards himself as Palestinian looks Middle Eastern was illegally ethnically cleansed is entitled to return according to Geneva Convention Morch wrote.. >>There was nothing said about the level of justification of either side . So are these two cases equally justified? Zionist under present apartheid immigration laws appear to believe that the Jew has more right than the Palestinian. So here's your chance to say something.
  3. The spin is in claiming that Palestinians desire to return to their homes from which they were expelled in living memory has somehow less justification than the Zionist desire to people Palestine with Jews, whoever they are ...even Ivanka Trump qualifies. Calling the report biased is just your transparent cop out for not addressing the important issues raised. The spin of a Palestinian conspiracy you repeat in your self same reply, saying " If Israeli immigration policies are indeed abhorrent and deserve to be denounced, how does this reflect on the Palestinian goal amounting to pretty much the same thing (if to a greater extent)? Why is one embraced (or ignored) while the other is rejected?" So are we going to have another 2 pages of verbose semantics pedantry now, saying "the goal" is not the same as a conspiracy. Because Palestinians are coming home from refugee camps to a place they were illegally kicked out of just a few decades ago and still have the documentation to their land, while Jews are immigrating from New York and London mainly as religious nutjobs. Most world Jewry have voted with their feet and prefer to practise their religion where they are doing very nicely thank you. They don't need Israel, but Israel needs them. Hence the Zionists' desperate measures at demographic engineering and apartheid to prevent Palestinians outnumbering them.
  4. The OP report is about one racial group exerting its dominance over another and using oppression and demographic engineering to do so i.e. apartheid by creating an artificial Jewish cant be a Jewish state if the majority aint Jews. So they manufacture ways of achieving this. The main method is by claiming it is perfectly legitimate to invite any Jew of spurious lineage to come and claim Israeli citizenship after a massive 2000 year gap. The first attempt at an artificial Jewish majority was achieved by ethnic cleansing. Those expelled Palestinians now simply want to come home after a mere gap of 69 years..they never actually wanted to leave in the first place, except through natural fear during war time at the hands of Jewish terrorist gangs. They have wanted to come home every single day since their expulsion. So why is that so wrong and is IMO far more valid than the Jewish Right of Return. Besides all that the refusal to allow this right of return and Israel's transferring of its own population into their confiscated home and lands is a war crime under the Geneva Convention(*see below), it is denial of a simple human right. Now if that upsets the Zionists' demographic engineering and their dream of a Jewish State, well tough, they should not have created the situation in the first place. And if gerrymandering populations and apartheid are the flimsy foundations of the Jewish state, perhaps it is telling you something about its illegitimacy. You are embarrassingly transparent in talking the hind leg off a donkey simply not to admit that, and spinning this into some sort of Palestinian conspiracy. All part of the usual great Israeli victim hoax calling black white.You don't fool anyone. >>And it is neither a "schtick" nor off-topic ..So please show me in the OP (or full report) where this is mentioned. *According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifically prohibits an occupying force from transferring its own civilian population on to territory it occupies. The same Geneva Convention to which Israel is a signatory also forbids the occupying power from ethnically cleansing the existing Palestinian residents In UN Resolution 446, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East" Reiterated in the recent December 2016 UN Resolution 2334 "Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, ...Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,
  5. You won't answer my very simple question which is on topic: if the 2000 year old right of return is somehow OK for Jews, why is the 69 year old right of return not OK for Palestinians? So I am certainly not going to be led off topic by addressing your repeated schtick about Palestinian leadership . Besides, Zionists can do their own dirty denigration work. Most observers can see quite clearly what Kerry and many others conclude that Israel can be Jewish or democractic but not both. I am simply bemused that the current Israeli right wing are undermining a two state solution that would allow Israel to remain predominantly Jewish and democratic. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, who am I to tell them nay. If moderate (sensible!) world Jewry and Israeli Jews prefer peace through a two state solution, I would suggest they get their skates on to voice their concern before a single state after a painful flown blown period of apartheid becomes inevitable. The two peoples are geographic neighbors for eternity so they will end up living together anyway, and future generations will wonder why it took them so long.
  6. History is full of incompetent over ambitious politicians who make silly decisions, OTT reactions, and too little too late policies, that have ultimately led to monumental change. It is not the task of Israel's critics to appease their right wing by staying silent. If the current right wing government of Israel digs itself a deeper hole through some of the present laws pending such as annexation of large settlement blocs and the retrospective illegal seizure of privately owned Palestinian land that wildcat outposts have been built on, it will only reinforce the apartheid situation outlined in the OP and make the job of condemning the racist state clearer and easier. It's up to the more moderate elements within the Israeli electorate and world Jewry to make their voices heard to curb the right wing currently rushing Israel towards a one state full blown apartheid situation.
  7. Zionist Israel's policy is evil because it is racist apartheid. I want to replace Zionism with a secular democracy. The details of which and its gradual implementation with checks and balances through a fair constitution is for the politicians and experts to work out. In the implementation there is nothing to say that it should be an overnight massive influx of Palestinians, nor that Israel should cease to be a haven for genuinely persecuted Jews. As the OP report concludes: the present Israeli apartheid regime is wrong. Many world leaders and commentators also think it is unsustainable. I agree.
  8. A very simple question which is at the heart of the OP regarding demographic engineering ..if the 2,000 year old Jewish right of unlimited return is quite legitimate, why is the Palestinian 50-69 year old right of return not? You clearly dodge that very basic question which is fundamental to the OP apartheid report. The answer is obvious: it would undermine the phony Jewish majority and would mean the end of Zionism, that iniquitous racist supremacist ideology which must be protected whatever it takes including apartheid. It would enable Palestinians throught the ballot box as equal citizens to challenge all the discriminatory laws Israel at present uses against them. QED.
  9. So if the 2,000 year old Jewish right of return is legitimate, please tell me why the 50-60 year old Palestinian right of return isn't.
  10. Why should Palestinians reward the invading fanatical Jewish settlers who have made Palestinian lives hell and still do. I doubt the rabid Jewish settlers would want to stay anyway without the IDF to protect the cowardly bullies. You are very disingenuosly equating Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed within living memory, with anyone who simply calls himself a Jew after millenia of absence, and dilution of any race through intermarriage and conversion. Do the latter still have their title deeds? This is exactly what the OP is referring to: a deliberate policy of Palestinian exclusion to boost Jewish only numbers. Israel has used ethnic cleansing twice already to achieve this phony Jewish majority. They want the land, but not the people already living there.They find it more difficult to repeat that in the 21st Century midst the glare of the social media, so as the OP points out they have to resort to dog whistle apartheid by demographic engineering.
  11. I am trying to stick to the OP mention of author bias there. That's just your introduced "shoot the messenger" besmirching. Lots of accusations about rehashing and previously debunked, but no links. Wouldn't it be easier simply to address the points in the OP. That way we could all stay on topic.
  12. >>No problems with the Palestinian goal of establishing a state free of Jews I don't seem to recall Israel building anything other than Jewish only settlements in the West Bank, not forgetting of course one of the OP's Israel's demographic engineering projects within Israel itself. "In October 2010, the Knesset approved a bill allowing smaller Israeli towns to reject residents who do not suit "the community's fundamental outlook", based on sex, religion, and socioeconomic status. Critics slammed the move as an attempt to allow Jewish towns to keep Arabs and other non-Jews out." (Very informative link listing the numerous ways that Israel practises apartheid against the Palestinian population) Controversial Bill Allowing Towns to Reject Residents Israeli Arab >>No problems with seeing the so-called Palestinian "Right of Return" as a legitimate, but rejecting Israeli immigration policies. There is a huge difference between allowing unlimited Jewish immigration and instant citizenship from anywhere in the world, for people who have never set eyes on Israel before, may not even feel an affinity to the place (just a handy 2nd passport) and who may not even be religious. Ivanka Trump could come if she wants to, simply because she married a Jew. Whereas Palestinians who were born there and still have the title deeds and keys to their ancestral homes just a few miles away in Israel, are not allowed to return to their homes and land. And that is not even counting Palestinians in refugee camps in nearby countries. Of course, as the OP report points out: this is all a deliberate apartheid strategy to maintain an artificial Jewish majority.
  13. Page 4 of the thread and I have yet to see you address a single issue in the OP report. Just the usual tactic: deny, deflect, obfuscate, besmirch. deny... "several debunked" interesting to hear about the ones you regard as not debunked. deflect...trying to blame Palestinians obfuscate...introducing off topic quotes, and saying its all been discussed before. besmirch...derogatory digs at me, and dismissing the authors of the report as biased without responding to a single point raised.
  14. Wrong! Dexterm's ultimate position supports a scenario in which Israel the hateful racist supremacist ideology of Zionism disintegrates as well.
  15. Rima Khalaf, the lady who was forced to resign rather than sweep the truth under the carpet, is sincere about her principles, and certainly must have pricked the conscience of the UN Sec Gen in her letter of resignation... UN bowed to ‘fearmongering and threats’ from powerful governments to cover up ‘painful truth’ of Israeli apartheid — UN official’s resignation letter "For I believe—as you do—in the values and noble principles that have always represented the forces of good throughout history, and upon which our organization, the United Nations, was founded. And, like you, I also believe that discrimination against any human being on the basis of religion or skin color or gender or ethnicity is absolutely unacceptable, and cannot be made acceptable by political maneuvering or brute force. And I believe that to speak truth to power is not only a human right, it is our obligation." She goes on to point out how twice in the last 2 months she has been instructed to withdraw the report not because of its content or that the UNSC disagreed, but because of political pressure from countries mentioned in the report...i.e. Israel. Well done, madam.