exist, point them to this article.

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2012, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess it's a good thing to use if you ever want to beat the crap out of a strawman.

Edited to add, I think it was a mistake on my part to post on this particular thread. I say this because everybody on this thread is someone that I either had, or would have had, on ignore on DU2. Since the ignore system on DU3 doesn't allow one to view responses to ignored posters, and I do like to read the responses, I'm basically trying to practice a kind of "virtual ignore", so it's going to take some self discipline on my part to simply pass over your posts without reading them, and to refrain from responding to them, or responding to responses to my own posts. So I basically broke my discipline and gate crashed your party, for which I apologize.

I'll just wrap this up by acknowledging that you were right in some sense. While I myself either haven't run into those posts, or else found them to be so "out there" that they didn't really register, you have demonstrated that it is possible to dig up such posts from the old DU, with enough time and effort. I still contend that I am right in my post in that it's not something that I have personally encountered, at least that I can recall.

I may now be adding myself to your roster. According to my own personal belief system, I don't actually believe that any state or geopolitical entity has an inherent "right" to exist. The modern day nation state is actually a fairly recent concept, and they have always existed with a considerable amount of fluidity. In my own brief time on Earth, many states have come into existence, and many other states have ceased to exist. I wasn't very sorry to see the USSR disappear, and I'm not even very attached to the existence of my own state, the USA. It wouldn't bother me if the US were to break up into a number of smaller states, or even if part of it were to merge with Canada.

While I'm not attached to the existence of any state, I will say that I don't believe in the deliberate destruction of states through violence. I also don't believe that the state of Israel will ever cease to exist through the application of external violence. I don't believe, however, that it's eternal existence either as a state, or as a state that exists particularly for a single ethnic/religious group is guaranteed.

Anyway, sorry for gatecrashing your party. You can carry on with bashing me as a bigot, or alert on my post for bigotry, or just have a little chuckle at my expense. I won't be bothering you here again.

There have been those who have advocated the destruction of Israel. At DU2, many of those posts were deleted. It got to a point that upon creation of DU3, the following was added to the Terms Of Service statement on bigotry:

No bigoted hate speech.
Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

DU TOS

make sure you carry the plastic buckets with you at all times. Never go anywhere unprepared.

... on MY shelter door when the zombie hordes come to your house.

... where more guns and ammo did or would have resulted in significantly fewer deaths -- especially Jewish deaths. Sorbibor, the Warsaw Ghetto and the Belorussian Jews are but a few examples.

And no, before you type it, I don't believe that Jewish lives are any more significant than other lives (to believe so would to violate a principal belief of Judaism). However, no one can deny that bad people have guns -- Jewish people are a perennial target of bad people with guns. Not to accept this is to accept the status of a victim and tantamount to suicide.

Given how things have worked out for Jews historically when they are dependent on a host nation for their security, I personally think it behooves all Jews to own and be trained in the proper use of firearms. I and my family do.

But, I'm thinking that was deliberate, right?

Don't equate Judaism with the worst aspects of Zionism. They are NOT synonymous.

hope that clears things up

... just to be clear. It's your contention that Jews/Israelis believe non-Jewish lives are worth less than Jewish lives?

Is that what you're saying?

Palestinian leadership attacks Israelis - Israeli respond. The fact that more Palestinians are harmed than Israelis has nothing to do with the value of human lives -- it has to do with tactics. When Palestinians make attacks from populated areas then they put those populations in harm's way. But, let's not pretend that isn't the very point of making attacks from civilian population centres.


If it comes down to value for human life. You might want to point your accusations at the Palestinian leadership who deliberately puts their own brother's lives in jeopardy with these tactics -- using Palestinian civilians as cannon fodder in their propaganda war.

Many Jews -- including myself -- believe that Palestinian suffering is directly linking not to the actions of Israel but their exploitation by Palestinian and Arab leaders for the last century. Keeping them in refugee camps for decades merely to fulfill a pointless dream of destroying Israel. The Palestinian leadership has straight out admitted that if the occupation ended tomorrow, many West Bank Palestinians would remain in the refugee camps so they don't lose their status as refugees. It seems the Palestinian leadership doesn't value Palestinians lives very much at all.

If you're truly concerned about Palestinian suffering and you value Palestinian lives you should spend your time and effort trying to dissuade them from this insane armed struggle to eliminate Israel just like I do.

Palestinian leadership attacks Israelis - Israeli respond

You don't bomb a packed place like Gaza unless you think Arab lives less significant than Jewish lives........Do you honestly think the IDF would have dropped a 1 ton bomb on an Rayan's Gaza apartment killing two civilians and four children if they thought for one moment that one of those children might have been Jewish?

@kayecy: I suppose you think the Palestinians had no right to try and stop the flood of Zionist immigrants?....

What "Palestinian" right was this you seem to think is self-evident? I put Palestinian in quotes because at the time the term referred to both Arab and Jewish inhabitants of the stateless territory. And so I ask, what right do members of one ethnic group inhabiting a stateless territory have (or had at the time) to prevent immigration into that territory by another ethnic group?

It seems to me you are claiming that the Arabs, who were themselves immigrating into the area in far greater numbers than Jews at the time, had some right to prevent those Jews from immigrating. Just what right was this and where does international or humanitarian law provide for this?

And so I ask, what right do members of one ethnic group inhabiting a stateless territory have (or had at the time) to prevent immigration into that territory by another ethnic group?

... that there was a thriving Jewish population in Palestine for centuries? If they wanted to invite their relatives to come live with them -- why does that concern you?


Jews are not and never have been "alien" to Palestine.

So is there some magic number, some golden ratio, where the larger group is entitled to start riots, attack the minority and kick them out? That's rich. Please expand.

We're finally getting down to the nitty gritty. BTW, I do admire debating tactics, but you mentioned in another comment that your goal is to show that the Zionists are responsible for the conflict. I'd suggest that a better goal would be to assign responsibility for the conflict according to some principles of of ethical or legal conduct. Your comment above might be a cute debating tactic but it does nothing to resolve the real question. But, since this topic is central to the question, let's look closely at your comment. I asked, "what right do members of one ethnic group inhabiting a stateless territory have (or had at the time) to prevent immigration into that territory by another ethnic group?"

Your answer (non answer) was:

As much right as any other ethnic group living in an area....Whether the territory in which they reside is soverign or not.

I'd suggest that a better goal would be to assign responsibility for the conflict according to some principles of of ethical or legal conduct

"Deliberately flooding a territory with immigrants in order to achieve a political majority is definitely not ethical..."

I'm pretty sure I heard a guy from "The Minutemen" say precisely the same thing when referring to Hispanics. You're not from Texas or Arizona, are you?

After 1945, there were only 9 million Jews on the entire planet, most of which lived in the US and were very unlikely to pull up stakes and move to a desert with no infrastructure. Are you seriously going to insist that overwhelming the Arab world demographically was a viable plan?

...in order to establish a homeland there. The Ottoman Empire viewed Zionism sympathetically and as beneficial both politically and economically to their interests (as well as the locals in the region that would become Israel). There was no Palestinian leadership of any kind in that area to negotiate with.

Tell me, do you believe it was a crime for the Brits to grant the Hashemites rule over most of the Palestinian mandate? That disenfranchised the Palestinians who make up some 3/4 of what is now Jordan. Do you consider that as unethical and unprogressive as Zionism? After all, the Hashemites were a minority given rule over the majority Palestinian population. That is how you see Zionism, as a minority (Jews) given dominion over the majority Palestinian population in Israel.

They weren't the Palestinians-and even the Ottoman knew, by the late 19th Century, that the days of their presence in Palestine were going to come to an end very, very soon(the British, for their part, had never wanted to BE in Palestine-if they had, they wouldn't have given Palestine BACK TO THE OTTOMAN after taking it out of Egyptian control in the 19th Century).

Negotiations for any territory have to involve the people who actually live on the territory, the peoples(in both communities in this case)who had ancestral claims on the land. Colonial rulers and League of Nations-appointed administrators never had any authority or any right to negotiate ON BEHALF of Palestinians(Any more than the British Army would have had authority to be a negotiating partner in the Northern Irish peace process

Why would you ever expect the Palestinians to accept the validity of land deals made by people who(through imperial conquest)had effectively stolen their land(in this case, the Ottoman)? And no, the fact that the Ottoman were absentee landlords doesn't make that ok. All imperial conquests produce absentee land ownership...the international community does not accept the idea that conquest creates valid title.

..as there was no Palestinian leadership to negotiate with otherwise.

If so, name them.

I'll wait.

Israel is the Jewish state. It spent resources to go and rescue Jews from around the world, not to rescue anyone who needed rescuing. Obviously it puts the well being of its citizens first, followed by non-citizen Jews. You can argue that this means that Jews think that Jewish lives are more important than Palestinian lives. More realistically though we should probably say that most groups of people find their lives to be more important than the lives of their enemies.

but I wonder is it as expressly forbidden to advocate for say the destruction of Iran or Egypt, or Mexico or even the US in the same manner as it is Israel, or do those simply fall under common sense?

That isn't common sense. It's common decency. For some people that doesn't apply to Israel. Therefore, there is a specific prohibition.

its never ever happened

Have you ever seen calls for the destruction of Egypt or Iran? I haven't. Not on DU and not out in the real world. Not ever. Have you? On the other hand, I have heard the calls for Israel's destruction. Do you deny that there have been calls for Israel's destruction on DU and in the real world? Unless you disagree witht the factual assessment, I don't see what your beef is. And there is certainly no cause for you to be pretending that what is true isn't, unless you have some evidence for it.

that you do like my question perhaps such things should be left unsaid, eh?

as I said I'll take your word for it

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

as you've made a couple of posts about what I said

or even harming it through violence. The TOS explicitly ban America-haters and supporters of terrorism. As regards the other countries - I have never come across anyone who advocated the destruction of Egypt or Mexico; if this was a recurring problem, I'm sure it would be banned. People who advocate destroying Iran would come under the category of RW trolls.

The reason why Israel is mentioned specifically is that some people do recommend its destruction. There was one poster who posted variants of 'That is why Israel needs to be destroyed' on something like 5 or 6 occasions.

if the United States would, at some point, and through peaceful means, break up into a number of smaller republics.

As a matter of fact, I myself harbor such sentiments, and I believe I've both expressed them before on DU, and seen others expressing similar ones, though I couldn't say that as a certainty.

If DU had been around at the time the Soviet Union was beginning to fall apart, I would have certainly been advocating for it's dissolution, though certainly not through violent means or through outside aggression.

At the time when South Africa was still under apartheid, I sometimes used to callously suggest that we should just nuke the place. (I know, not a very nice sentiment, but I plead my extreme youth at the time.)

Would any of these things count as a TOS violation? Is advocating for Israel as a single state for all its citizens rather than a state for a specific ethnic/religious group, a large part of which are not citizens, a TOS violation? (Naive and unrealistic maybe, but a TOS vio?)

Do you think that posts like this will eventually get me banned from DU?

The anti-Israel organizations supporting BDS, like the FreeGaza movement, the ISM, and many human rights NGO's are well respected and fully supported by many here, including yourself. They compare Israelis to Nazis and insist Israel is racist and apartheid, having no right to exist.

They all demand full right of return, the end of a Jewish state, or say they're agnostic about a 2 state solution. They're relentless in their demonization and delegitimization and truly do not believe Israel has any right to protect its citizens from ongoing terror attacks, as anything Israel does in self defense is a war crime, collective punishment, etc. If they could've had a say in 1948, there wouldn't be an Israel today. Israel is to blame for just about....everything.

They are without question against Israel's existence.

If it were up to them, there would be one state where everyone has "equal rights" and they wouldn't object at all if in the first election the majority Arab population voted against Israel being a Jewish state. If that one state became just another Arab country like any other in the mideast, they wouldn't have a problem with that.

Your buddies, the radical settlers compare Israelis to Nazis all the time.

And how do you know which organizations I "fully support"?

I apologize for responding in any way and breaking my "virtual ignore" policy.

Oh, and I'm a "one stater" as well; just like your buddies, the radical settlers are. Israel has as good as annexed the West Bank (oh sorry, I meant to say "Judea and Samaria), and sooner or later they are going to have to recognize and accept the citizenship and equal rights of their Arab population. It's not me or any of those NGO's who are pushing for it, it's your settler buddies creating their "facts on the ground", the "facts" being a single state.

Now go ahead and get me banned as an "anti-semite" who is urging the "destruction of Israel".

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2012, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I lump radical settlers together with radicals of every stripe, from the religious to the secular. Hard left as well as the hard right. All being insane true believers and cultists, intolerant of the other, who deplore dissent in their ranks and are detached from reality. The radical settlers' notion of one state is just as delusional and wrongheaded as any other political or religious group.

Do you believe that since radical settlers call Israelis nazis that it's okay for other people to do so as well?

Actually, the Neturei Karta are not radical settlers. They're hailed by Hamas, Iran, and radical leftists as fellow anti-zionist comrades. Nuts of all stripes, right/left, religious/secular can always find things they can agree on.

It's not their fault that Jordan abandoned so many of THEIR citizens on the West bank.

The Arab citizens of Israel live in a reality in which they experience discrimination as Arabs. This inequality has been documented in a large number of professional surveys and studies, has been confirmed in court judgments and government resolutions

Every nation in the world discriminates against their minorities. Like all other western nations, Israel guarantees equality for all its citizens. Discrimination is not institutionalized in Israel against any minority.

Nakba day? Fines for observing it is not institutionalized discrimination okay then

It exposes you as being entirely anti-Israel, not pro-Palestinian one bit...

When you guys never once advocate ever for Palestinian rights under Hamas or PLO control, or Palestinian refugee rights under genuine apartheid conditions in Lebanon, or the loss of Palestinian citizenship in Jordan, the killing of hundreds at Nahr el Barad, etc., etc... you expose yourself as an advocate for extreme rightwing humanitarianism.

Your only interest in Palestinians is if Israel can be blamed in some way. Palestinians aren't human, they're useful political pawns. Nothing more...

You're for one state and more bloodshed and war. If it were up to you, Palestinian refugees would stay in camps another 64 years. Your sole purpose on this board is to delegitimize and demonize. That much is obvious. I see absolutely no empathy for Hamas' Israeli victims, no empathy for the "colonialists" and "thieves" who barely escaped the concentration camps and Arab pogroms going on throughout the mideast, no condemnation of Hamas/PLO genocidal antisemitic incitement and terror. Only support for their odious cause.

I can't even tell you're really for an end to occupation and settlements. That could've ended 12 years ago, but you were against that too.

All I see from my POV is anti-Israel hatred. Nothing more. I don't see anything in your cause that is positive.

- the 2011 Yedioth Ahronoth report that teachers around the country were complaining of rampant, virulent anti-Arab racism amongst their Jewish students.

- the Israeli housing discriminatory practices against Palestinians in East Jerusalem have resulted in the construction of over 88 percent of the units for Jewish settlers and only 12 percent of the units for Palestinians since 1967.

- in 1991, the GOI admitted that government investment per Palestinian Arab pupil was about 60 percent of its investment per Jewish pupil

I don't deny there's discrimination. Where there is injustice, I'm in favor of Palestinians using the Israeli court system to their full advantage in order to rectify any wrongdoing. I'm in favor of anyone within Israel who advocates against discrimination of any kind there.

Now for someone who has a problem with discrimination, why don't you or your anti-zionist allies ever advocate for Palestinian rights under Hamas/PLO control? Women's rights, gay rights, and christian rights? How about Palestinian refugees suffering under state sanctioned apartheid conditions in Lebanon? I thought you guys were pro-Palestinian humanitarians.

Just as any other minority that has citizenship within a western democracy.

I see you are not familiar with the adversarial method of debate.......I am attempting to show that Israeli/Zionism is the root cause of the I-P conflict......I presume you are trying to show me that Israel does not have the major responsibility for the deaths and suffering caused by the I-P conflict.

Okay, if that's what you're attempting to argue, I disagree.

You're assuming Jews have no right to self-determination in any part of that region, and that destroys your entire thesis. Jews do have a right to their own land in that region. It's not their fault that extreme, radical Islamists like the Mufti, Hamas, Iran, etc... are averse to a Jewish homeland and are committed to annihilating the Zionist entity at some point in the future. It's not just an I-P conflict either, as it has been an A-I (Arab/Israeli) conflict from the start.

Israel doesn't bear responsibility for the majority of suffering in that region for daring to defend themselves. For example, refugees. They've suffered the worst the past 64 years. The responsibility for them is on all other mideast nations who have refused to grant them or their offspring citizenship. UNRWA is also to blame for creating a new type of refugee (offspring) and perpetuating the crisis.

If I expressed my disgust about Hamas/PLO control, women's & gay rights, etc, would it contribute in anyway to convincing you that Israel was largely responsible for the I-P conflict?

The point is you anti-zionists never voice disgust at Hamas, the PLO, Lebanon, Jordan, or Syria for their treatment of Palestinians. This is all a game to delegitimize Israel. Your criticism of Israel has zero to do with human rights. THAT is what I'm attempting to argue. In fact, your advocacy (that of extreme anti-zionists) can only lead to an increase in war and bloodshed, for it is anti-zionists who refuse the 2 state solution and are hellbent on one state; yet another failed authoritarian regime and chronic abuser of human rights (just like the rest of the mideast). I see absolutely nothing good, fair, or just with the anti-zionist position.

In no way can any decent person accept that Jews escaping the gas chambers of Europe and the pogroms throughout the mideast are responsible for the I/P conflict. The very thought is revolting. To identify them as colonialists and thieves is vile. Whether you like it or not, Israel does have a right to exist.

...you are implying they do have them now, correct? In 1948, American blacks, women, and gays didn't have equal rights either.

Not true again....I just don't do it in this Forum where there are lots of ultra-nationalists like yourself who never miss an opportunity to point out Arab failings.......If you choose to think that justifies your accusations, well that is just one more example of your illogicality.....You almost never criticise Israeli policy or IDF harassment but I don't hold that against you...You are merely defending your corner.

1. I'd like to believe extreme anti-zionists are critical of Hamas and other Arab leadership (especially WRT the way they treat Palestinians), but I can't. I've never seen comments on any public forum coming from anti-zionists that are highly critical of the way Arab leadership treats Palestinians.

2. You keep calling me an "ultra-nationalist". Is that what I am when I believe Jews must have their own homeland in order to ensure they have at least one safe haven in the world?

3. I "never miss an opportunity to point out Arab failings". You know what I get from that statement? I get that you're not really into criticizing extreme Islamist regimes and organizations that do great harm to other people (far, far worse than anything Israel can be accused of). It makes me doubt you criticize on other forums b/c it seems you're against such criticism. Maybe you think I'm demonizing...and that's what I never miss an opportunity to do? Just curious.

If you will just calm down we can examine your claim dispassionately....For a start, can you show me how "it" destroys my entire thesis?......I should perhaps add that I do believe that Jews, like every other people, had a right to their own land but they had no right to impose themselves on a poor people like the 1920s Palestinians simply because, unlike the US, Canada, Australia etc, the Palestinians were defenseless.

4. What destroys your whole thesis is that Jews have a right to their own homeland in that region. Given they have such a right, there's no reason Jewish refugees escaping pogroms and gas chambers should've been denied legal entry into Palestine.

5. When you say Jews had no right to impose themselves on a poor people, you are in fact saying Jews had no right to their homeland in that region (in Israel no matter how small the state). It's also ridiculous and vile to claim that pogrom and holocaust evaders were colonialists and thieves who jumped at the opportunity to take advantage of or impose themselves on a poor, defenseless population. They did no such thing.

6. Since you do not believe Jews have any right to a homeland in any part of the original Palestine Mandate, just where should the Jewish homeland have been?

7. Lastly, since you do not believe Jews had any right to Israel, is it your opinion they had just as little 'right' to Israel as they had a 'right' to any other place in the world (Uganda, Montana, Antarctica...)?

It's truly a shame we don't have you as our benevolent overlord.

...to all western nations, or only to Israel in your opinion?

...then I take it you're in favor of whatever authoritarian Palestinian or Arab government that would have resulted had Zionism failed, correct?

Meaning that you favor authoritarian, regressive, radical oppressive regimes (that you say you're critical of) over a liberal democracy.

Is that correct?

=============

You blame the great powers of 1918 for the I/P mess, but the Ottoman Turks viewed Zionism sympathetically prior to that time. It seems to me that the Zionists/Jews did what they could legally and diplomatically with the established leadership of that time period. That carried over into the LoN call for a Jewish homeland a few years later. If anything, what the Jews accomplished WRT Israel was historically the most progressive (as well as moral) establishment ever of a new nation.

Tell me, do you believe it was a crime for the Brits to grant the Hashemites rule over most of the Palestinian mandate? That disenfranchised the Palestinians who make up some 3/4 of what is now Jordan. Do you consider that as unethical and unprogressive as Zionism? After all, the Hashemites were a minority given rule over the majority Palestinian population. That is how you see Zionism, as a minority (Jews) given dominion over the majority Palestinian population in Israel

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2012, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll add some thoughts for kayecy to reflect upon. Engaging with you is frustrating because you prefer flowery words to substance. When you get challenged on substance you retreat into those words and never address the core issues - and so discussions get repetitious and go nowhere. Your goal is to win points with your words - not to explore opposing ideas - which would be far more interesting.

Your core beliefs are centered on the idea that people have (should have) some inherent right to maintain their cultural dominance wherever they live, by expelling or rejecting anyone who is different. That is an Arab ME mindset. Although based on the soaring Arab / Muslim immigration to Europe, it's a right they seem to apply only to Arabs. It is part of a range of Arab ME beliefs that are mutually supportive - such as that a man must seek vengeance in kind for any insult, preferably violence, that people who differ from you in any way such as religion, language, customs, etc. are inferior, that one must support their own kind (graded by proximity of blood relations) no matter right or wrong, that one must never accommodate inferiors such as women or infidels or treat them as equals, etc. It is the code of 10th century desert nomads who would not have survived under any other system, stubbornly imposed on today's world by the need for oil. Culturally both the West and East have cross-pollinated each other a bit but the West anyway, has largely moved on to better concepts of governance. At least better in terms of making their populations healthier, more prosperous and happier.

Such anti-democratic beliefs - or a society that embraces them - can only flourish where it is run by the iron fist of a dictatorship whose leader has grown up and gained their power and success by following those rules - and by following them more ruthlessly than their rivals. That was exactly the kind of person you wanted to rule your clan or tribe a few hundred years ago in the desert. But such beliefs are not compatible with a pluralistic modern world of equal rights and personal liberty and the rule of laws embedded in constitutions and representative legislative bodies. It's like oil and water.

Israelis have shown for decades that no matter how many times they are attacked by ME Arab armies - they keep trying to understand the world through their enemy's eyes. They keep offering the olive branch and attempting to trade concessions for peace. With very few exceptions they have refused to deal with their attackers in the same way that all Arab regimes deal with their rivals - such as Assad is doing today. But Israel seems to keep hoping that Palestinians will see the light and join the modern world of give and take and compromise. No other Westernized nation has ever shown such forbearance - which according to the laws of the desert of course is taken as a sign of weakness.

You told Shira that your idea of morality and hers were light years apart. I think you nailed it there. I'd enjoy having further discussion with you but not until you accept the possibility that there are other ways to see the world and relationships between societies than what you seem to believe is the only possibility. Maybe we could all learn something.

In your above ramblings you neglected to answer the basic ethical question which Zionists always avoid:

So the question for you is to explain why ethically, you think people living in a "stateless" territory should have less rights to reject immigration than people fortunate enough to live in a sovereign state?.........Why, ethically, you think these unfortunates, should have their basic right to self-determination overturned by alien immigrants?

you neglected to answer the basic ethical question which Zionists always avoid:

So the question for you is to explain why ethically, you think people living in a "stateless" territory should have less rights to reject immigration than people fortunate enough to live in a sovereign state?.........Why, ethically, you think these unfortunates, should have their basic right to self-determination overturned by alien immigrants?

This is getting boring. You have failed after several requests now to explain why Jewish immigration into Palestine and the eventual establishment of Israel was not ethical. Simply repeating that it was not ethical is not a logical justification for your claim. You must show how the action was not ethical with reference to actual ethical principles. Mine were the ethical principles that if immigration is allowed by any authority power into a stateless region then there is no reason why Jews can not migrate their as well as Arabs - and the (ethical) establishment of a constitutional based democratic government that represented all its citizens under the rule of law.

That's what the Zionists worked for for many years and asked permission from the UN to establish in 1947. It was offered to the Arabs too - although they did not work for it and did ask for permission to establish it. Neither were they ever prevented by anyone from establishing their own state. They were encouraged to do so. But they had other priorities it seems.

But, since you say ethics is important to, I'll give you another chance to prove it. What ethical principle was behind Arab efforts to prevent Jewish immigration and the establishment of the state of Israel. What were the ethical justifications for that? I'll help you out since you can't seem to come up with anything. The Palestinian and other ME Arabs said at the time and have repeated their motives for over six decades now. It was/is that Arab Muslims should not have to suffer the terrible humiliation of seeing a Jewish majority state on land that had previously been ruled by Muslims. (In short they didn't want Jews in their neighborhood and especially not Jews ruling themselves in their own state). That's been their consistent "ethical" justification over the years. But if you know their motives better than they do, (their "ethical" justifications) for their several wars of aggression against Israel, let's hear it.

Your last two posts seem to have consisted of statements with no request for me to do anything.

Mine were the ethical principles that if immigration is allowed by any authority power into a stateless region then there is no reason why Jews can not migrate there......