|
Stay on topic. I cannot put it more clearly then that. Derailments will be met with consequences. ~Nyovne |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 01 2012 03:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:39 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:34 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:24 oneofthem wrote:
can a palestinian guy get a job in israel?
status and social capital is the new land in a modern economy. By Palestinian do you mean an Israeli citizen of Arab descent? Ethnicity and nationality are different things, an ethnically Palestinian Israeli citizen has all the same rights as any other Israeli and is furthermore not required to do compulsory military service. um, no, i obviously mean those who are denied the rights that israeli citizenship confer. You haven't clarified who you mean at all. You have in fact said "those who are denied the rights do not have the rights". Again, an ethnic Palestinian with Israeli citizenship has all the same rights as any other Israeli including the right to work. An ethnic Palestinian with Iraqi citizenship would not have those rights. Please clarify who you think Israel is denying rights to in terms of both ethnicity and nationality. when you have people in desperate conditions and are not allowed integration into your economy because they don't have the rights to do so, those are the people i am talking about. taking your starting point as legal categories when discussing the impact of those very categories is circular. You still haven't clarified beyond "those with no rights have no rights". I will concede that those with no rights do indeed have no rights however I continue to make the argument that those with no rights do not include Arabs with Israeli citizenship.
"those have no rights" is not a natural fact. it's that way because israel does not recognize their rights. it would be like me robbing you and then say i do not recognize your property rights, because you have none.
basically, whenever there is an actual problem of someone suffering or being treated badly, there is a palestinian that i am interested in talking about. my concern is that some people are clearly in desperate straits because their rights are not recognized by israel. this is called a human rights problem.
|
US pulls funding
YES YES YES YES
Now we only need the whole U.N. to recognize Palestine to get rid of that ridiculous organization and hold the new state accountable for its attacks. Two flies with one swat!
|
On December 01 2012 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:34 Tobberoth wrote:On December 01 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. I think you mean legally belonged to the British when they inherited the rights of the Turks. Either way, dwelling on the injustices of 60 years ago does absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians alive today. The problem with discussing "rights to an area" is that it becomes weird because of the countries switching it around. Let's say you're living in Italy. So you're an italian living in your country. Then somehow Russia comes and takes over Italy. So you're russian. Then Russia gives the country to a people without a country, let's say the natives in northern scandinavia. Problem is, they don't want you in "their" country and kicks you out. Now someone could make the claim that you have no legal right to the country because you're not a born russian, but it makes no sense. And you'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be pissed off. And you'd probably take up arms and fight for your right to live there. But if 60 years later your grandson is upset that he has been denied a life he only imagines because of the injustice done to you then you have to ask yourself what progress you've made in those 60 years. It is simply not realistic for the current generation of Palestinians to ever move back into the land which is now populated and which they never lived on, they need to seek a real solution to the humanitarian crisis rather than creating another generation to suffer because of it.
60 years is a short time in this context. There have been many examples in history where certain peoples liberated their homelands after even centuries of foreign occupation. If they stopped after 2 generations then their entire nation would be nowhere by now. It's not at all illogical for the Palestinians to keep fighting at this point.
|
On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion.
Level of life in Gaza is better or same level as in Morocco and Republic of Moldova for example, and i do not heard about blockade or active ongoing war/fighting in those regions and no one is trying to send humanitarian aid to them for some reason. So "barely alive" is kinda an overstatement. About not allowing to "trade and export", can you please explain?
|
On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009.
true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted?
and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another.
|
On December 01 2012 01:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 01:39 Tobberoth wrote:On December 01 2012 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 00:19 Talin wrote:
Regardless of who controls it, I have very rarely heard American media criticize Israel's actions over the years, even among the more liberal outlets. Conspiracy theories aside, it is not difficult to accuse them of extreme bias in this case.
When somebody claims that a country being accepted by the UN will somehow lead to escalation and mass murder, it's also not difficult to question the credibility of one's sources and why he believes in what they say. Being accepted into UN is not an act of aggression against anyone, except those who believe that the state in question should not exist at all (which would be a very difficult position to justify from a rational standpoint). well that is an acceptable position to take, but I still think it's missing some key things. Israel is a recognized state, it has a functioning democracy, more religious and personal freedom than is the norm over there, and actually has gone out of their way to help the Palestinians. have there been mistakes? of course, there will always be mistakes. has Israel had a consistent policy of keeping the Palestinians down or of denying them any chances of statehood? I think it would be hard to argue that they have. the reason I say it will lead to escalation is because it shows that the world is not requiring that Palestine work with Israel to get a solution hammered out. the Palestinians right now are pretty belligerent (whether they have reason or not is irrelevant), and it's not a stretch to say that they will continue to try to go it alone. the fact is that the rest of the world doesn't have a very good track record with either people, the Jews or the Palestinian arabs, and for them to butt their noses in and start messing with a delicate situation as if they have some mandate is... well, it's a bit much for me anyway. and it's not a stretch to say that it will heighten tensions between Israel and Palestine (and between the US and the rest of the Middle East/world), and that it will further push the Palestinians toward continued belligerence, a scenario that can only lead to war, and eventually, mass death. it is an aggressive act, what the UN has done, in that it rejects the necessity of Palestine dealing directly with Israel to find a solution to the problem. it rewards belligerence (the launching of rockets/terrorism), and it weakens Israel's position, which is already tenuous, on public opinion. if Israel (and the US) reject the proposal, they look as though they are trying to block Palestinian statehood and those with confirmation bias will take this up in a heartbeat as a "sign" that Israel doesn't want peace, or wants to keep the Palestinians in perpetual limbo. if they accept the proposal then they de-legitimize themselves, their position, and they give credence to the very people who have launched rockets at them. the very people who have sent suicide bombers at Israeli schoolchildren. for anyone to suggest that this is a good thing, what has occurred.... well to me it shows a serious lack of foresight and naivete. but I am willing to accept that I have a bit of bias and that I could be missing something here. edit: this is not to say that all Palestinians are belligerent, or that they should all bear the burden of a few people's sins. the problem with the situation is that both sides have legitimate issues with the other side, and it has festered for long enough that it's more than a simple, 1+2 equation here. statehood is possible, and inevitable, but only when both sides work together WITHOUT the interference of the rest of the world. that's my opinion anyway. I'm sorry, but the whole idea that Palestine needs to work with Israel to come up with a solution is... dumb. That's honestly like a teacher telling a bullied kid that he shouldn't ask for help from teachers, he should kindly sit down with the bullies and give them what they want. Look at a map. Check what Palestine had, and what they have now. Check their resources and compare them to Israels. Now ask yourself, what options do Palestine ACTUALLY have, other than bending down and taking it up the ***? The UN recognizing Palestine doesn't mean UN will start sending troops to help Palestine against Israel, it just gives Palestine some needed recognition and backing and is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from ignoring Palestinian rights when they take settlements wherever they please. whether it's right or not, the Palestinians never had anything. the land was owned by the Ottoman Turks, and then was owned by Britain, and then was owned by Israel. legally, the Palestinians never had a state, and have no legal claim to one other than what Israel is willing to accept. simply casting the Israeli's as the "bully" shows how fucked up this situation is, because nothing is that simple. Israel has a Jewish population of about 7 million, right? Egypt: 82.5 million. Syria: 20 million. Lebanon: 4.5 million, Jordan: 6.5 million. it's a bit ridiculous to accuse Israel of being a bully here when they are a tiny country surrounded by a hostile majority, and have been under near-constant attack since their inception. at any other time, with any other nation and people, the land that Israel won in multiple wars which it did not start would be theirs without question. they have given back most of everything they ever took, a move which I have yet to see any other country do so willingly, especially when you consider the nature of the people they gave it back to: hostile. not only that, but the true persecutors of the Palestinians are other Muslims and Arabs, who have killed more Palestinians and caused more suffering than Israel ever could. isolating Israel as the problem is very shortsighted and not helpful in any way toward achieving a legitimate, peaceful solution. the UN won't send troops, thank God, because they know that would kickstart WW3. what they're doing instead is the same tactic that you saw in the past: isolate and demonize the Jews, and then use inflammatory rhetoric and mistruths and omissions to whip up anti-semetic fervor against them. look at the UN Human Rights Council. how many times have they sanctioned Israel? how many times have they sanctioned any other country? right there proves that there is a severe anti-Israeli, anti-semetic bias in the UN. edit: if this is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from taking settlements than why did Israel just approve new settlements in response to this? even if you think Israel is all in the wrong (which is a very simplistic opinion to hold), you cannot possibly think this will actually promote peace or make Israel more likely to want to negotiate. this move was childish and counterproductive, and worse, the Palestinians know that it is and so does most of the world.
Do you honestly believe this? Because if you do I dare say that you have been brainwashed (most likely by a parent/biased news network)
Here are some guidelines people should get their head out their asses and follow:
1. Israel is a COUNTRY and NOT a RACE or RELIGION if someone criticizes Israel diplomatic wrongdoings unless mentioning any of the sort they can only be called anti-sionistic. Don't start calling them antisemtic and racist, that makes you just look like a dumbass.
2. Try and look into the viewpoints of all sides (this should be obvious)
3. Don't be ignorant, tie this in with point 1. and 2. when you evaluate your shit before you tell anyone else your opinion.
Following these points I am going to write something now!
Israels actions concerning the palestinians are ethically, morally and humanly (humanitarian) wrong. Their actions go way over "defensive action" and just makes them look like warmongers and only ends up adding fuel to the fire. The worse they treat the palestinians the worse they will be treated in return (obvious, no?) Notice how that was in no way racist? Still, an israeli diplomat or whatever would have called me an antisemite or a nazi. It has happened before in Norway, the israeli was ridiculed in norwegian media for it.
A solution to this crisis will not be easy to find. There are crimes being committed by both sides but the ones by Israel is IMO far worse. Deliberate bombings of UN facilities as well as schools and hospitals using White Phosphorous bombs which are against the Geneva conventions.
Also as a final note, would you say IRA's actions would allow UK to launch a full-scaled invasion killing thousands upon thousands of civilians?
|
On December 01 2012 03:39 KwarK wrote:
And you'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be pissed off. And you'd probably take up arms and fight for your right to live there. But if 60 years later your grandson is upset that he has been denied a life he only imagines because of the injustice done to you then you have to ask yourself what progress you've made in those 60 years. It is simply not realistic for the current generation of Palestinians to ever move back into the land which is now populated and which they never lived on, they need to seek a real solution to the humanitarian crisis rather than creating another generation to suffer because of it.
I think KwarK has identified the real problem here. If you're gonna take over and settle a native population's land, you'd better do a damn good job at exterminating them utterly and not be all wishy-washy about it.
That's the fundamental difference between the colonization of, say, the USA or Taiwan (seriously, who ever hears about the native population of Taiwan after the Japanese occupation and Chiang Kai Shek?) to, say, Israel or South Africa.
|
United States42826 Posts
On December 01 2012 03:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:40 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:34 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:24 oneofthem wrote:
can a palestinian guy get a job in israel?
status and social capital is the new land in a modern economy. By Palestinian do you mean an Israeli citizen of Arab descent? Ethnicity and nationality are different things, an ethnically Palestinian Israeli citizen has all the same rights as any other Israeli and is furthermore not required to do compulsory military service. um, no, i obviously mean those who are denied the rights that israeli citizenship confer. You haven't clarified who you mean at all. You have in fact said "those who are denied the rights do not have the rights". Again, an ethnic Palestinian with Israeli citizenship has all the same rights as any other Israeli including the right to work. An ethnic Palestinian with Iraqi citizenship would not have those rights. Please clarify who you think Israel is denying rights to in terms of both ethnicity and nationality. when you have people in desperate conditions and are not allowed integration into your economy because they don't have the rights to do so, those are the people i am talking about. taking your starting point as legal categories when discussing the impact of those very categories is circular. You still haven't clarified beyond "those with no rights have no rights". I will concede that those with no rights do indeed have no rights however I continue to make the argument that those with no rights do not include Arabs with Israeli citizenship. "those have no rights" is not a natural fact. it's that way because israel does not recognize their rights. it would be like me robbing you and then say i do not recognize your property rights, because you have none. basically, whenever there is an actual problem of someone suffering or being treated badly, there is a palestinian that i am interested in talking about. my concern is that some people are clearly in desperate straits because their rights are not recognized by israel. this is called a human rights problem.
I do not have the right to work in Israel because I am not an Israeli citizen. Equally Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens do not have the right to work. Denying them the right to work is in no way unreasonable, it is very much within the powers of a sovereign state and is one of those exercised by every state in the world. I still have no idea who you think you are talking about or what rights you think they are being denied and am beginning to think you don't either. I'll state again, if you are a Palestinian ethnically who is also a citizen of Israel then you have all the same rights and privileges as any other Israeli citizen from any background imaginable.
|
On December 01 2012 03:41 blinken wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:26 fluidin wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 02:57 fluidin wrote:On December 01 2012 02:44 blinken wrote:On December 01 2012 00:58 Crownlol wrote:
I'd say that saying "the jewish media has its control over the American population" is more than just hints of antisemitism, its outright antisemitic. I'd argue it's outright true. Any media in the West (particularly the US) is highly favorable to the Israeli position. You will often hear of the Israelis "defending" themselves (how can you defend yourself in occupied soil?) and the Israeli death toll. It is hilarious to watch coverage of the same news story on American TV versus that of the BBC or Aljazeera. You will see it is highly biased (watch a documentary called Peace Propaganda and the Promised land for an introduction to this practice.) All you ever hear is the Palestinian "terrorists" attacking the "peaceful, democratic" Israelis. Never does it mention that for every Israeli killed, something like 8 or 9 Palestinians are killed. Everyone should listen to world renown scholar Noam Chomsky speak on this subject. He is Jewish and spent a great amount of time in Israel, being connected to it through friends and family. He also happens to be the most outspoken critic of Israeli expansion in Palestine. He himself refers to many Israeli practices as barbarous and that Israel has reduced Palestine to an open air prison. I ask you, if one of the smartest people in the world, Noam Chomsky, who is also Jewish and loves Israel is totally against its foreign policy and stance on Palestine, why is anyone in the West for it? Oh, it's because scholars like Chomsky are shunned from mainstream media because their goal of peace is not the goal of the corporate taskmasters. Meh, media bias, even to a large degree, is still nowhere near the blanket statement of "jewish media has its control over the American population". I don't agree with Israel not retaliating, although I definitely am against the settlements. Chucking rockets into Israel is only going to legitimize their "retaliation", so I would argue it's far better off not to do it. Something like 8 or 9 Palestinians are killed for every Israeli death is because Hamas hides its munitions and soldiers in densely populated areas. This creates a "be damned if do and damned if don't" situation, so Israel exercises its right to retaliate. Tragic, but not entirely their fault. Your statement insinuating that if "one of the smartest people in the world" is against foreign policy on Palestine, then the western hemisphere should follow suit is riddled with flaws. I'm pretty sure there are people as smart as Chomsky on the other side, that are for even more extreme policies. Smartness does not validate his opinions. Perhaps his morality does, but definitely not his intellect. I love your point of Hamas hiding in densely populated areas and using schools etc. This is a hilarious representation of mainsteam media. Have you seen how tiny Gaza is? There is nowhere within it that isn't densely populated. I also don't understand the argument that it would be better for the Palestinians not to fire rockets. They do it, because it's all they can do. People with Western attitudes think it would be better for them to stop, but I ask, then what happens? If they didn't do this you would never even hear about Palestine, and the Israeli expansions would continue until one day there is only Israel. I don't agree with suicide bombing or targeting of civilians, but what other discourse do these people have when even the US, the supposed beacon of freedom and liberty, are against you. On Chomsky, I must say, there are no people on the other side as smart as him. The man is a walking encyclopedia, which is mainly why I referred to his superior intelligence, rather than his superior morality. Chomsky makes mince meat out of anyone he debates. One of the smartest people on "the other side," is Alan Dershowitz, frankfurter professor at Harvard. Watch this debate. Note how Chomsky uses nothing but facts, and one of the smartest people on "the other side" does nothing but sink to ad hominems almost immediately. The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. Oh, a hilarious representation? Hahaha. No. Fact is, Hamas can reduce the cost of their own people's lives. And they choose not to do so to incite negative propaganda against Israel. You can't argue against hiding in hospitals and kindergartens. They do it, because it's all they can do? What is this I don't even. Are you truly believing that terrorism is ALL that's left for Palestinians? Then I say they are better off being absorbed into Israel. Smartness does not equate to being a walking encyclopedia, nor being able to dish out facts. It, sadly, is about being smart enough to "use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth". I like your point of view. Don't fight for freedom, don't fight against tyranny, if a superior force knocks down your home, suck it up and roll with the punches. I could almost invoke Godwin's law right now... Terrorism. What a silly word, thrown around by people who lack understanding. Terrorism is a joke, and I find it offensive in this context. George W. loves it though. Don't watch the video I posted then. Continue on in your arrogance asserting that he is not a walking encyclopedia, even though he is one of the most cited resources in academia. Intelligence has nothing to do with being able to discredit others and sway public opinion. If that were true the smartest people on earth are all Priests.
You are the one that implies Palestinians has no avenue or options other than suicide bombing or chucking rockets at civilians. I don't know what your definition of terrorism is, but I am fully aware of my own understanding of this term, and I fully believe I am right in using this term under said context. I don't care about what conjured up meaning you have for the word. Neither am I using George W.'s "terrorism".
Anyway, what Palestine should do is work with sympathetic US groups and the rest of the world to try and achieve a two-state solution or similar resolution, while NOT electing Hamas or similar parties.
I didn't say he isn't a walking encyclopedia. I am challenging your definition of intelligence. To me, intelligent people are the ones who get what they want, using whatever means, at a relatively low cost or lack of negative opinion against them. Morality does not come into the equation, nor is it about being right.
|
On December 01 2012 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:34 Tobberoth wrote:On December 01 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. I think you mean legally belonged to the British when they inherited the rights of the Turks. Either way, dwelling on the injustices of 60 years ago does absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians alive today. The problem with discussing "rights to an area" is that it becomes weird because of the countries switching it around. Let's say you're living in Italy. So you're an italian living in your country. Then somehow Russia comes and takes over Italy. So you're russian. Then Russia gives the country to a people without a country, let's say the natives in northern scandinavia. Problem is, they don't want you in "their" country and kicks you out. Now someone could make the claim that you have no legal right to the country because you're not a born russian, but it makes no sense. And you'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be pissed off. And you'd probably take up arms and fight for your right to live there. But if 60 years later your grandson is upset that he has been denied a life he only imagines because of the injustice done to you then you have to ask yourself what progress you've made in those 60 years. It is simply not realistic for the current generation of Palestinians to ever move back into the land which is now populated and which they never lived on, they need to seek a real solution to the humanitarian crisis rather than creating another generation to suffer because of it.
But this was Israel's plan from the beginning, as it seems to me! It is true that today's generations aren't faulty for the things their grandfathers did, but I know for sure that I would seek justice for the injustice done to my grandfather. The best solution would certainly be to turn the page and start a new relationship with Israel, but you can't really expect it after all that has been done.
|
On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says.
It is hard to really understand why Hamas is elected, since we can't fathom what a populace is really like when it has lived in the prison like conditions it has for so long. Hatred would seemingly rise, don't you agree. While I oppose Hamas, I oppose my own government as well. I can't blame the people for the actions of their government (no more than I can my own people right now). What I find sad here is that Israel is supposed to be the mature, democratic nation, yet they act as childish as the prisoners they've kept.
The US and Israel are not interested in Palestinian interests, as this problem would have been solved long before the rise of Hamas.
I can't find a good argument from the Israeli side. I mean, what is the argument? Is it "god promised us this land! he promised! why are we being attacked for ripping down homes and destroying families when god promised us this land!? it's in the bible people!"
You can't remove the religious aspect from this whole thing as well, as it is probably one of the most important aspects. I find it amusing that the Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the most holy site in Judaism. The Jewish faith entirely revolves around the building of the Third Temple, but how can you build the third temple when the Dome of the Rock stands on the temple mount? At its core religion is still a massive factor.
Oh and total Palestinian casualties since 1987? 7978. Israeli? 1503. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 01 2012 03:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:34 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:24 oneofthem wrote:
can a palestinian guy get a job in israel?
status and social capital is the new land in a modern economy. By Palestinian do you mean an Israeli citizen of Arab descent? Ethnicity and nationality are different things, an ethnically Palestinian Israeli citizen has all the same rights as any other Israeli and is furthermore not required to do compulsory military service. um, no, i obviously mean those who are denied the rights that israeli citizenship confer. You haven't clarified who you mean at all. You have in fact said "those who are denied the rights do not have the rights". Again, an ethnic Palestinian with Israeli citizenship has all the same rights as any other Israeli including the right to work. An ethnic Palestinian with Iraqi citizenship would not have those rights. Please clarify who you think Israel is denying rights to in terms of both ethnicity and nationality. when you have people in desperate conditions and are not allowed integration into your economy because they don't have the rights to do so, those are the people i am talking about. taking your starting point as legal categories when discussing the impact of those very categories is circular. You still haven't clarified beyond "those with no rights have no rights". I will concede that those with no rights do indeed have no rights however I continue to make the argument that those with no rights do not include Arabs with Israeli citizenship. "those have no rights" is not a natural fact. it's that way because israel does not recognize their rights. it would be like me robbing you and then say i do not recognize your property rights, because you have none. basically, whenever there is an actual problem of someone suffering or being treated badly, there is a palestinian that i am interested in talking about. my concern is that some people are clearly in desperate straits because their rights are not recognized by israel. this is called a human rights problem. I do not have the right to work in Israel because I am not an Israeli citizen. Equally Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens do not have the right to work. Denying them the right to work is in no way unreasonable, it is very much within the powers of a sovereign state and is one of those exercised by every state in the world. I still have no idea who you think you are talking about or what rights you think they are being denied and am beginning to think you don't either. I'll state again, if you are a Palestinian ethnically who is also a citizen of Israel then you have all the same rights and privileges as any other Israeli citizen from any background imaginable.
work rights are a kind of barrier. the market in that area by physical constraints includes all the palestinian territories.
taking away these artifices of exclusion would seem very reasonable if you stop operating in national level categories.
|
On December 01 2012 03:46 Frigo wrote:YES YES YES YESNow we only need the whole U.N. to recognize Palestine to get rid of that ridiculous organization and hold the new state accountable for its attacks. Two flies with one swat!
I'm afraid that will be true too for the other side of the "barricade" (read Israel and US as main supporter). That's why US/Israel are behaving like "you are not funny anymore, I'm gonna take my toys and go home" right now.
|
United States42826 Posts
On December 01 2012 03:50 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:39 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:34 Tobberoth wrote:On December 01 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. I think you mean legally belonged to the British when they inherited the rights of the Turks. Either way, dwelling on the injustices of 60 years ago does absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians alive today. The problem with discussing "rights to an area" is that it becomes weird because of the countries switching it around. Let's say you're living in Italy. So you're an italian living in your country. Then somehow Russia comes and takes over Italy. So you're russian. Then Russia gives the country to a people without a country, let's say the natives in northern scandinavia. Problem is, they don't want you in "their" country and kicks you out. Now someone could make the claim that you have no legal right to the country because you're not a born russian, but it makes no sense. And you'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be pissed off. And you'd probably take up arms and fight for your right to live there. But if 60 years later your grandson is upset that he has been denied a life he only imagines because of the injustice done to you then you have to ask yourself what progress you've made in those 60 years. It is simply not realistic for the current generation of Palestinians to ever move back into the land which is now populated and which they never lived on, they need to seek a real solution to the humanitarian crisis rather than creating another generation to suffer because of it. But this was Israel's plan from the beginning, as it seems to me! It is true that today's generations aren't faulty for the things their grandfathers did, but I know for sure that I would seek justice for the injustice done to my grandfather. The best solution would certainly be to turn the page and start a new relationship with Israel, but you can't really expect it after all that has been done.
Do you really think the Palestinians firing rockets towards Israeli towns do so with the expectation of justice for the displacement of their grandfathers? How much Israeli civilian blood is justice for a square kilometre of stolen land? It's madness and they need to get past it.
|
On December 01 2012 03:49 Roflhaxx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 01:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 01:39 Tobberoth wrote:On December 01 2012 00:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 00:19 Talin wrote:
Regardless of who controls it, I have very rarely heard American media criticize Israel's actions over the years, even among the more liberal outlets. Conspiracy theories aside, it is not difficult to accuse them of extreme bias in this case.
When somebody claims that a country being accepted by the UN will somehow lead to escalation and mass murder, it's also not difficult to question the credibility of one's sources and why he believes in what they say. Being accepted into UN is not an act of aggression against anyone, except those who believe that the state in question should not exist at all (which would be a very difficult position to justify from a rational standpoint). well that is an acceptable position to take, but I still think it's missing some key things. Israel is a recognized state, it has a functioning democracy, more religious and personal freedom than is the norm over there, and actually has gone out of their way to help the Palestinians. have there been mistakes? of course, there will always be mistakes. has Israel had a consistent policy of keeping the Palestinians down or of denying them any chances of statehood? I think it would be hard to argue that they have. the reason I say it will lead to escalation is because it shows that the world is not requiring that Palestine work with Israel to get a solution hammered out. the Palestinians right now are pretty belligerent (whether they have reason or not is irrelevant), and it's not a stretch to say that they will continue to try to go it alone. the fact is that the rest of the world doesn't have a very good track record with either people, the Jews or the Palestinian arabs, and for them to butt their noses in and start messing with a delicate situation as if they have some mandate is... well, it's a bit much for me anyway. and it's not a stretch to say that it will heighten tensions between Israel and Palestine (and between the US and the rest of the Middle East/world), and that it will further push the Palestinians toward continued belligerence, a scenario that can only lead to war, and eventually, mass death. it is an aggressive act, what the UN has done, in that it rejects the necessity of Palestine dealing directly with Israel to find a solution to the problem. it rewards belligerence (the launching of rockets/terrorism), and it weakens Israel's position, which is already tenuous, on public opinion. if Israel (and the US) reject the proposal, they look as though they are trying to block Palestinian statehood and those with confirmation bias will take this up in a heartbeat as a "sign" that Israel doesn't want peace, or wants to keep the Palestinians in perpetual limbo. if they accept the proposal then they de-legitimize themselves, their position, and they give credence to the very people who have launched rockets at them. the very people who have sent suicide bombers at Israeli schoolchildren. for anyone to suggest that this is a good thing, what has occurred.... well to me it shows a serious lack of foresight and naivete. but I am willing to accept that I have a bit of bias and that I could be missing something here. edit: this is not to say that all Palestinians are belligerent, or that they should all bear the burden of a few people's sins. the problem with the situation is that both sides have legitimate issues with the other side, and it has festered for long enough that it's more than a simple, 1+2 equation here. statehood is possible, and inevitable, but only when both sides work together WITHOUT the interference of the rest of the world. that's my opinion anyway. I'm sorry, but the whole idea that Palestine needs to work with Israel to come up with a solution is... dumb. That's honestly like a teacher telling a bullied kid that he shouldn't ask for help from teachers, he should kindly sit down with the bullies and give them what they want. Look at a map. Check what Palestine had, and what they have now. Check their resources and compare them to Israels. Now ask yourself, what options do Palestine ACTUALLY have, other than bending down and taking it up the ***? The UN recognizing Palestine doesn't mean UN will start sending troops to help Palestine against Israel, it just gives Palestine some needed recognition and backing and is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from ignoring Palestinian rights when they take settlements wherever they please. whether it's right or not, the Palestinians never had anything. the land was owned by the Ottoman Turks, and then was owned by Britain, and then was owned by Israel. legally, the Palestinians never had a state, and have no legal claim to one other than what Israel is willing to accept. simply casting the Israeli's as the "bully" shows how fucked up this situation is, because nothing is that simple. Israel has a Jewish population of about 7 million, right? Egypt: 82.5 million. Syria: 20 million. Lebanon: 4.5 million, Jordan: 6.5 million. it's a bit ridiculous to accuse Israel of being a bully here when they are a tiny country surrounded by a hostile majority, and have been under near-constant attack since their inception. at any other time, with any other nation and people, the land that Israel won in multiple wars which it did not start would be theirs without question. they have given back most of everything they ever took, a move which I have yet to see any other country do so willingly, especially when you consider the nature of the people they gave it back to: hostile. not only that, but the true persecutors of the Palestinians are other Muslims and Arabs, who have killed more Palestinians and caused more suffering than Israel ever could. isolating Israel as the problem is very shortsighted and not helpful in any way toward achieving a legitimate, peaceful solution. the UN won't send troops, thank God, because they know that would kickstart WW3. what they're doing instead is the same tactic that you saw in the past: isolate and demonize the Jews, and then use inflammatory rhetoric and mistruths and omissions to whip up anti-semetic fervor against them. look at the UN Human Rights Council. how many times have they sanctioned Israel? how many times have they sanctioned any other country? right there proves that there is a severe anti-Israeli, anti-semetic bias in the UN. edit: if this is a step in the right direction to stop Israel from taking settlements than why did Israel just approve new settlements in response to this? even if you think Israel is all in the wrong (which is a very simplistic opinion to hold), you cannot possibly think this will actually promote peace or make Israel more likely to want to negotiate. this move was childish and counterproductive, and worse, the Palestinians know that it is and so does most of the world. Do you honestly believe this? Because if you do I dare say that you have been brainwashed (most likely by a parent/biased news network) Here are some guidelines people should get their head out their asses and follow: 1. Israel is a COUNTRY and NOT a RACE or RELIGION if someone criticizes Israel diplomatic wrongdoings unless mentioning any of the sort they can only be called anti-sionistic. Don't start calling them antisemtic and racist, that makes you just look like a dumbass. 2. Try and look into the viewpoints of all sides (this should be obvious) 3. Don't be ignorant, tie this in with point 1. and 2. when you evaluate your shit before you tell anyone else your opinion. Following these points I am going to write something now! Israels actions concerning the palestinians are ethically, morally and humanly (humanitarian) wrong. Their actions go way over "defensive action" and just makes them look like warmongers and only ends up adding fuel to the fire. The worse they treat the palestinians the worse they will be treated in return (obvious, no?) Notice how that was in no way racist? Still, an israeli diplomat or whatever would have called me an antisemite or a nazi. It has happened before in Norway, the israeli was ridiculed in norwegian media for it.A solution to this crisis will not be easy to find. There are crimes being committed by both sides but the ones by Israel is IMO far worse. Deliberate bombings of UN facilities as well as schools and hospitals using White Phosphorous bombs which are against the Geneva conventions.
Israel is a country that cannot be separated from it's people and it's religion. and go ask Hamas if they hate Israel's foreign policy but don't mind Jews as people. see what kind of answer you get, and then come talking to me about there not being a virulent anti-Semitic streak within the Palestinian movement, and the Arab world as a whole. I'm not calling people on this forum anti-semetic, I'm saying that a lot of their propaganda and their tactics are anti-semetic, and that some people on this forum are using the rhetoric that the anti-semites use, probably unintentionally.
the bolded part contradicts, immediately, your rule number 2. you go out of your way to widely condemn Israel, say nothing of Israel's point of view or reasoning, and then further imply that the only Israeli argument could be to call you an anti-semite or a Nazi. look at it from both points of view, like you suggested, and you will see that the Palestinians have some basis, but the Israeli's also have very sound reasons for their actions, even if those actions sometimes do go beyond the scope of good ethics.
that you then go on to say that Israel's actions are worse is another violation of the 2nd rule, which is that you neglect the fact that Israeli children have been massacred also.
|
United States42826 Posts
On December 01 2012 03:55 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:50 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:34 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:24 oneofthem wrote:
can a palestinian guy get a job in israel?
status and social capital is the new land in a modern economy. By Palestinian do you mean an Israeli citizen of Arab descent? Ethnicity and nationality are different things, an ethnically Palestinian Israeli citizen has all the same rights as any other Israeli and is furthermore not required to do compulsory military service. um, no, i obviously mean those who are denied the rights that israeli citizenship confer. You haven't clarified who you mean at all. You have in fact said "those who are denied the rights do not have the rights". Again, an ethnic Palestinian with Israeli citizenship has all the same rights as any other Israeli including the right to work. An ethnic Palestinian with Iraqi citizenship would not have those rights. Please clarify who you think Israel is denying rights to in terms of both ethnicity and nationality. when you have people in desperate conditions and are not allowed integration into your economy because they don't have the rights to do so, those are the people i am talking about. taking your starting point as legal categories when discussing the impact of those very categories is circular. You still haven't clarified beyond "those with no rights have no rights". I will concede that those with no rights do indeed have no rights however I continue to make the argument that those with no rights do not include Arabs with Israeli citizenship. "those have no rights" is not a natural fact. it's that way because israel does not recognize their rights. it would be like me robbing you and then say i do not recognize your property rights, because you have none. basically, whenever there is an actual problem of someone suffering or being treated badly, there is a palestinian that i am interested in talking about. my concern is that some people are clearly in desperate straits because their rights are not recognized by israel. this is called a human rights problem. I do not have the right to work in Israel because I am not an Israeli citizen. Equally Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens do not have the right to work. Denying them the right to work is in no way unreasonable, it is very much within the powers of a sovereign state and is one of those exercised by every state in the world. I still have no idea who you think you are talking about or what rights you think they are being denied and am beginning to think you don't either. I'll state again, if you are a Palestinian ethnically who is also a citizen of Israel then you have all the same rights and privileges as any other Israeli citizen from any background imaginable. work rights are a kind of barrier. the market in that area by physical constraints includes all the palestinian territories. taking away these artifices of exclusion would seem very reasonable if you stop operating in national level categories.
None of the words you are using mean anything. You have still not clarified which group you feel is being denied rights. I don't know if you're simply not a native English speaker or if you're some kind of bot that just combines words at random but you have failed to communicate your point (if you even have one).
|
On December 01 2012 03:50 Art.FeeL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:39 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:34 Tobberoth wrote:On December 01 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 Elroi wrote:On December 01 2012 03:23 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:21 oneofthem wrote:
that this crisis is happening on israel's doorsteps does in itself put responsibility on israel to do something, particularly when active measures are contributing to the ongoing situation.
This would be why Israel gives a colossal amount of humanitarian aid to Palestine? Which doesn't correspond even to a small bit to what they make out of the land that legally belongs to the Palestinians? They don't let the Palestinians trade or export their goods, they don't give them access to what used to be their cultivable land, they don't let them fish more than 10 km from the cost. They keep them alive, barely, but talking about humanitarian aid is just too much, in my opinion. I think you mean legally belonged to the British when they inherited the rights of the Turks. Either way, dwelling on the injustices of 60 years ago does absolutely nothing to help the Palestinians alive today. The problem with discussing "rights to an area" is that it becomes weird because of the countries switching it around. Let's say you're living in Italy. So you're an italian living in your country. Then somehow Russia comes and takes over Italy. So you're russian. Then Russia gives the country to a people without a country, let's say the natives in northern scandinavia. Problem is, they don't want you in "their" country and kicks you out. Now someone could make the claim that you have no legal right to the country because you're not a born russian, but it makes no sense. And you'd be pissed off and you'd have every right to be pissed off. And you'd probably take up arms and fight for your right to live there. But if 60 years later your grandson is upset that he has been denied a life he only imagines because of the injustice done to you then you have to ask yourself what progress you've made in those 60 years. It is simply not realistic for the current generation of Palestinians to ever move back into the land which is now populated and which they never lived on, they need to seek a real solution to the humanitarian crisis rather than creating another generation to suffer because of it. But this was Israel's plan from the beginning, as it seems to me! It is true that today's generations aren't faulty for the things their grandfathers did, but I know for sure that I would seek justice for the injustice done to my grandfather. The best solution would certainly be to turn the page and start a new relationship with Israel, but you can't really expect it after all that has been done.
If they can't compromise, and can't accept the reality of their position as the weaker entity, then it becomes a war of attrition, one that ends in total loss for the weaker party.
But be able to look past that, and it will mark the rebirth of its people. One that might end up with a stronger position in due time, and be able to exact reparations.
|
On December 01 2012 03:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:40 WhiteDog wrote:On December 01 2012 03:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:On December 01 2012 03:12 blinken wrote:
The fact is, when debating this subject, the Israelis can't use facts, because all the facts are against them, so they use clever tactics to sway public opinion and discredit those speaking the truth. this is a bit much, man. neither side is perfectly innocent, but to claim that there is no fault in the Palestinian position is a bit ridiculous, or that Israel cannot make an argument with facts. here is a fact: 804 deaths by suicide bombings since 1989; the vast majority coming from the last decade. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks#Total_number_of_fatalities.2C_by_year2,256 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel in 2012 alone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_20128,342 people wounded in terror attacks http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism- Obstacle to Peace/Palestinian terror since 2000/Victims of Palestinian Violence and Terrorism sinc.htmyou don't condone these actions, but then you say that the Palestinians don't have any course of action that they can take. that isn't true, because they do have other courses of action that they can take, namely: not electing and supporting Hamas. giving the middle finger to the Arab countries that are using them and instead working with the US and Israel for a peaceful solution would be another good step. it's a little ridiculous to pretend like there is no argument from the Israeli side, no matter what Noam Chomsky says. Now compare with the Palestinian killed and injured in that period. It's a 7 for 1 ratio and worst since 2008-2009. true, and that is unfortunate. but who is the aggressor here? which of them has a policy of attack and aggression, and which has a policy of defense? which side, if it stopped it's attacks or incursions, would be eliminated, and which would be accepted? and importantly, though very few ever consider it, which is a legitimate, legal, democratic nation and which isn't? that makes a world of difference when we're talking about attacks from one side to another.
What is a democracy for you, explain to me. Because they have election in Gaza, it's a democracy in this regard, while in Israel there is a legal difference made between Jew Israeli and Arab Israeli, which goes against the idea of a democracy. Please explain me, why is Palestine not a democracy.
Also, prove to me that the Palestinians are the agressor...
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the differing level of burden placed on israel and palestine is also sourced from their different level of...rationality, to make the bias obvious. liberals think that israel should act because they are in the winner position, while also having less raw passion level reasons for perpetuating the conflict.
yes, you can't reason with terrorists. does not mean your own engagement styles are constrained by the same kind of madness.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 01 2012 03:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 03:55 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:50 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:40 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:39 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:34 oneofthem wrote:On December 01 2012 03:28 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2012 03:24 oneofthem wrote:
can a palestinian guy get a job in israel?
status and social capital is the new land in a modern economy. By Palestinian do you mean an Israeli citizen of Arab descent? Ethnicity and nationality are different things, an ethnically Palestinian Israeli citizen has all the same rights as any other Israeli and is furthermore not required to do compulsory military service. um, no, i obviously mean those who are denied the rights that israeli citizenship confer. You haven't clarified who you mean at all. You have in fact said "those who are denied the rights do not have the rights". Again, an ethnic Palestinian with Israeli citizenship has all the same rights as any other Israeli including the right to work. An ethnic Palestinian with Iraqi citizenship would not have those rights. Please clarify who you think Israel is denying rights to in terms of both ethnicity and nationality. when you have people in desperate conditions and are not allowed integration into your economy because they don't have the rights to do so, those are the people i am talking about. taking your starting point as legal categories when discussing the impact of those very categories is circular. You still haven't clarified beyond "those with no rights have no rights". I will concede that those with no rights do indeed have no rights however I continue to make the argument that those with no rights do not include Arabs with Israeli citizenship. "those have no rights" is not a natural fact. it's that way because israel does not recognize their rights. it would be like me robbing you and then say i do not recognize your property rights, because you have none. basically, whenever there is an actual problem of someone suffering or being treated badly, there is a palestinian that i am interested in talking about. my concern is that some people are clearly in desperate straits because their rights are not recognized by israel. this is called a human rights problem. I do not have the right to work in Israel because I am not an Israeli citizen. Equally Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens do not have the right to work. Denying them the right to work is in no way unreasonable, it is very much within the powers of a sovereign state and is one of those exercised by every state in the world. I still have no idea who you think you are talking about or what rights you think they are being denied and am beginning to think you don't either. I'll state again, if you are a Palestinian ethnically who is also a citizen of Israel then you have all the same rights and privileges as any other Israeli citizen from any background imaginable. work rights are a kind of barrier. the market in that area by physical constraints includes all the palestinian territories. taking away these artifices of exclusion would seem very reasonable if you stop operating in national level categories. None of the words you are using mean anything. You have still not clarified which group you feel is being denied rights. I don't know if you're simply not a native English speaker or if you're some kind of bot that just combines words at random but you have failed to communicate your point (if you even have one). you think barriers to entry to a labor market is a novel concept? when you have people who are physically present in a place, but are not allowed to participate in the economy, then that's a problem caused by lack of rights.
when you remove the layer of national identities from the situation and just look at as a domestic problem, the lack of rights is certainly the main thing you'd identify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
