General Discussion

Puregonzo1188

(1,948 posts)

18. If Israel is a democratic state why are refugees not allowed to return to their homes, but someone

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 04:42 PM

Apr 2012

with no connection to the region, other than being ethnically Jewish, can come to Israel, get citizenship, and move into their home?

Why is that although Israel maintains state power in all of historic Palestine (let's be honest about the Occupied Territories) that some people living in the OPT and subject to Israeli state power are not allowed to vote, but others are--solely because they denied citizenship based on their ethnicity and place of origin?

How is that a democracy? You notice I wont be defending Syria as a democracy, but I also wont be making such nonsensical claims about Israel.

As far, as Hamas and Hezbollah wanting the destruction of an entire people, i.e. genocide--you must surely be joking. Hamas has said they are willing to accept an Israeli state based on '67 borders, just not a Jewish state since you know 20% of the population of Israel is Palestinians with Israeli citizens and such a move would be codifying racism.

I don't particularly like Hamas or Hezbollah for a whole host of serious reasons, but accusing them of genocide and wanting to destroy an entire people is inflammatory and ignorant.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Imperialist powers manipulate Syrian peace plan to prepare for war [View all] The Northerner Apr 2012 OP

You can't say the I-word when there's a Dem in office. Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #1

Or maybe you simply shouldn't use it in an orgy of paranoid lunacy. TheWraith Apr 2012 #4

Do you think the US is an imperialist power? And do you think an intervention in Syria would be Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #15

I'm fine with destabilizing a regime that is openly murdering thousands in the streets, and Daniel537 Apr 2012 #2

And what about the destabilization of the former Afghan regime from which the Taliban took power? The Northerner Apr 2012 #3

You mean the one that was run by the Soviets? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #5

Exactly. Would you have supported destabilizing that regime at the time? The Northerner Apr 2012 #8

I would have supported destabilizing the Soviet troops in the country. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #9

Because Afghanistan's affairs are the US's affairs? The Northerner Apr 2012 #13

Considering that the Soviet Union was a real threat, to the US and many other nations, Daniel537 Apr 2012 #16

So, as long another country is perceived as a threat then interfering others affairs is acceptable? The Northerner Apr 2012 #17

I said real threat, not perceived. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #19

Oh, ok, as a long as a country is a "threat" and has WMDs it's acceptable to warmonger with them? The Northerner Apr 2012 #22

Warmonger? Lol. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #25

So, the countless foreign mujahideen who volunteered to fight the Soviets couldn't win? The Northerner Apr 2012 #30

Well we agree to disagree. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #32

Actually, I prefer that the Syrians handle their own affairs without imperialistic interference The Northerner Apr 2012 #43

Some are ok with mass murder and genocide, others are not. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #47

While I agree with you the USSR invasion of Afghanistan was imperialistic, you are completely Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #24

+100 I could not agree more. The Northerner Apr 2012 #26

lol, so the US provoked the Soviets to invade, huh? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #27

Take it up with Brzezinski, Cater's National Security Advisor, since it's his claim not mine. Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #31

My opnion has always been that Brzezinski has engaged in a bit too much self-congratulation here RZM Apr 2012 #38

Uhh, what is this coastline you speak of? Afghanistan in landlocked RZM Apr 2012 #35

I don't really dispute much of that and am aware of the internal dispute within Afghanistan prior Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #49

What's wrong with self-interest? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #52

I was referring to intervening in Afghanistan. Surely you don't get to use another country and it's Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #55

No, you don't get to use it as a staging ground. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #57

How many wars of aggression has the US waged? Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #60

Well then i guess that excuses the Soviets? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #62

States almost always do that RZM Apr 2012 #63

Could you explain to me why Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist and Israel is not? Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #10

Hamas and Hezbollah's goals are the destruction of an entire people's, aka genocide. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #12

If Israel is a democratic state why are refugees not allowed to return to their homes, but someone Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #18

I'm not here to defend everything Israel, or the Arab states do... Daniel537 Apr 2012 #21

Hamas, by Israel's own admission, did "cut the crap with the rockets" during the ceasefire. Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #28

I don't owe you a damn thing, bro. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #29

I agree that anyone who launches an launches an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation must deal Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #34

Accountable by whom? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #39

I believe war crimes should prosecuted. That would include the use of Qassam rockets. Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #42

I agree. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #45

I said international tribunal. Not extrajudicial executions. Who is going to arrest Israeli and US Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #50

Far worse? Lol. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #53

well that's a damn lie. provis99 Apr 2012 #46

lol, whatever you say, boss. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #48

Whatever he says? Whatever you say. Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #51

Looks like WSWS is all about some Assad RZM Apr 2012 #6

I wonder if they consider Assad to be an imprialist for arming Hamas and Hezbollah? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #7

What do you think of the US arming Israel? Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #11

I'm ok with giving them certain weapons, as long as they don't do like Hamas and Hezbollah Daniel537 Apr 2012 #14

You are aware that Amnesty International has called for an arms-embargo against both Israel and Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #20

And they are free to call for such an embargo. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #23

It was the Palestinians who rejected to losing their land, yes. Given that they owned 97% of the Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #33

That '47 plan sure looks better than what they have now, don't you think? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #36

The United Nations disagrees with you. You might recall the issue of refugees from the '48 war, you Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #40

So your going from the '47 plan to the '48 war now? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #44

The war started before the intervention by Arab states. Two-thirds of Palestinian refugees were Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #54

The Arab states intervened to stop Jews from emigrating, not to protect Palestinians. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #56

You know there was a civil war before the Arab intervention? You know refugees are produced by wars? Puregonzo1188 Apr 2012 #58

You know of what the Great Arab Revolt was? Daniel537 Apr 2012 #61

subtle, they ain't cali Apr 2012 #59

wowzer that is some dogshit propaganda there, honey. cali Apr 2012 #37

Its teh globalists. Daniel537 Apr 2012 #41