Israel admits harvesting organs from Palestinians who didn't need them any more

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by bcb

What exactly is the problem with a Jewish state, half the size of southern Alberta? There's no oil. So they have some fertile land and nice beaches. Big deal.

Furthermore, you fail to note that there are actually Israeli Arabs too. I reckon their quality of life "under suppression from the Jews" is actually pretty good.

The problem is their deluded idea that God gave them the land to live there and all others should be eliminated since they are going against the word of God. That's the main problem in the state of Israel. The idea that you must preserve the Jewishness of a country by all means possible is just wrong.

Here's an example: What if Canada wanted to preserve the "Englishness" of Canada. What if French Canadians were not given equal rights as compared to their English brothers? How about building English only settlements in Quebec that are guarded by English Canadian soldiers that are accessed through English only roads. What if French Canadians could not build houses in Quebec because it was impossible to get a building permit for French Canadians, but English Canadians could get one in a couple of weeks? How about having checkstops at every corner of every French town in Quebec that turn getting to work a 3 hour ordeal every morning. How about English Canadians slowly taking over Montréal, the heart and soul of French Quebec, renaming all the street names English names, renaming the city Mount Royal and then claiming it as the undivided capital of English Canada. What's the problem with that? There's about 20 other countries in the world that use French as their first language, they should all move there. Why do they need to live in Canada?

It sounds a little different when the context changes, doesn't it?

I am not opposed to Jews living in historic Palestine. Heck I am not even opposed to claiming their rights to a nation in the region. What I do have a problem with however is implementing blatantly racist and illegal policies in order to ethnically cleanse the land from all the Arabs that they seem to believe are subhuman.

[bcb]

The problem is their deluded idea that God gave them the land to live there and all others should be eliminated since they are going against the word of God. That's the main problem in the state of Israel.

Israel is not trying to get rid of them. The inhabitants, Jewish, Christian and Muslim of the Democratic State only want peace.

Here's an example: What if Canada wanted to preserve the "Englishness" of Canada. What if French Canadians were not given equal rights as compared to their English brothers? How about building English only settlements in Quebec that are guarded by English Canadian soldiers that are accessed through English only roads. What if French Canadians could not build houses in Quebec because it was impossible to get a building permit for French Canadians, but English Canadians could get one in a couple of weeks? How about having checkstops at every corner of every French town in Quebec that turn getting to work a 3 hour ordeal every morning. How about English Canadians slowly taking over Montréal, the heart and soul of French Quebec, renaming all the street names English names, renaming the city Mount Royal and then claiming it as the undivided capital of English Canada. What's the problem with that? There's about 20 other countries in the world that use French as their first language, they should all move there. Why do they need to live in Canada?

This did happen, in 1759.

I am not opposed to Jews living in historic Palestine. Heck I am not even opposed to claiming their rights to a nation in the region. What I do have a problem with however is implementing blatantly racist and illegal policies in order to ethnically cleanse the land from all the Arabs that they seem to believe are subhuman.

What racist and illegal policies? And how is trying to maintain a postage stamp-sized piece of land, in a sea of hostile nations ethnic cleansing?

[7uongo]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

He started it, no, he started it, no, he started it, no, he started it, no...

I started it

[valo403]

Originally Posted by blankall

You've obviously never been there. The vast majority of the land is dessert. The only reason they are able to grow anything is new water technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Israel

Only 20% of the land is arable.

I don't know what you guys are fighting about, there's plenty of dessert for everyone.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by _Q_

The problem is their deluded idea that God gave them the land to live there and all others should be eliminated since they are going against the word of God.

You are taking a belief to the extreme. If this were really the case all Gentiles would be denied citizenship and deported (or seemingly by your belief simply shot in the streets).

That's the main problem in the state of Israel. The idea that you must preserve the Jewishness of a country by all means possible is just wrong.

Then you agree that Saudi Arabia and Iran trying to preserve the
Islam-ness of their countries by all means possible is also wrong.
Would you agree to a Palestinian country if it were ruled by Sharia law?
Sounds like only secular countries need apply in your world.

Here's an example: What if Canada wanted to preserve the "Englishness" of Canada. What if French Canadians were not given equal rights as compared to their English brothers? How about building English only settlements in Quebec that are guarded by English Canadian soldiers that are accessed through English only roads. What if French Canadians could not build houses in Quebec because it was impossible to get a building permit for French Canadians, but English Canadians could get one in a couple of weeks? How about having checkstops at every corner of every French town in Quebec that turn getting to work a 3 hour ordeal every morning. How about English Canadians slowly taking over Montréal, the heart and soul of French Quebec, renaming all the street names English names, renaming the city Mount Royal and then claiming it as the undivided capital of English Canada. What's the problem with that? There's about 20 other countries in the world that use French as their first language, they should all move there. Why do they need to live in Canada?

It sounds a little different when the context changes, doesn't it?

As was mentioned above, you are reliving the 1700's. But you are missing a few key points. Your analogy may come close IF you note that Quebec is not a part of Canada but was a part of France and is now "disputed territory", that English Canadians had settled there centuries in the past with multiple archeological sites that show it. Don't forget that the FLQ is shooting at Ontario every day and celebrates when they blow up school buses. No one is talking about the heart and soul of the French, that would be Paris not Montreal. English Canada has offered to leave Quebec, demolish their towns, pay restitution, and give up half of Ottawa for them to have as a capital. But of course, it is never enough. Quebec wants to Canada to accept an influx of Quebecers who claim BC, AB, SK, MB, & ON as part of their home knowing that with the next Canadian election (no elections in Quebec, French law has priests in charge) that Quebecois will be the majority and once they are in power can adopt French law - a side affect would be making French the national language, hope you studied.

Anyone can see how flawed the attempt is to analogize the Mid-East conflict with any other.

I am not opposed to Jews living in historic Palestine. Heck I am not even opposed to claiming their rights to a nation in the region. What I do have a problem with however is implementing blatantly racist and illegal policies in order to ethnically cleanse the land from all the Arabs that they seem to believe are subhuman.

Historic Palestine is really Historic Israel. "Palestine" is what the Romans called the area and the British picked up. During the Ottoman Empire rule it was known as the province of lower Syria. During the rule of the Babylonian kings the area was know as the Kingdom of Israel (as noted in stone tablet tax rolls dated from that era. Israel paid tribute to the more powerful Assyrians and Babylonians).

As others have said, if Israel was pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing, they are doing the worst job in history.

Want to see ethnic cleansing done right look a little South West of Israel - no Jews in Gaza, No Jewish businesses in Gaza, no synagogues in Gaza, no Jews allowed to visit Gaza. No Jews allowed in Saudi Arabia or Syria either.
There a few Jews in Iran, but they are basically showpiece hostages - someone has to stand trial for being an Israeli spy every few years.

IF Israel were really trying to do as you say, then please explain the Arab businesses operating through out the country? Or the Mosques in Jaffa, Acco, and Nazareth (among other cities)? Or the Muslim/Arab members of Parliament? Or the Arab Cabinet Minister?

Having a problem with Israel's settlement policy in Judea & Sameria is a legit position. Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 boarders would bring about peace is also a legit position. Accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing or that "they seem to believe [Arabs] are subhuman." is boarderline antisemitic. Accusing Israel of this is subtext for the ages old accusation that Jews fundamentally believe they are the "Chosen People" and that gentiles are beneath them.

[bcb]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

You are taking a belief to the extreme. If this were really the case all Gentiles would be denied citizenship and deported (or seemingly by your belief simply shot in the streets).

Then you agree that Saudi Arabia and Iran trying to preserve the
Islam-ness of their countries by all means possible is also wrong.
Would you agree to a Palestinian country if it were ruled by Sharia law?
Sounds like only secular countries need apply in your world.


As was mentioned above, you are reliving the 1700's. But you are missing a few key points. Your analogy may come close IF you note that Quebec is not a part of Canada but was a part of France and is now "disputed territory", that English Canadians had settled there centuries in the past with multiple archeological sites that show it. Don't forget that the FLQ is shooting at Ontario every day and celebrates when they blow up school buses. No one is talking about the heart and soul of the French, that would be Paris not Montreal. English Canada has offered to leave Quebec, demolish their towns, pay restitution, and give up half of Ottawa for them to have as a capital. But of course, it is never enough. Quebec wants to Canada to accept an influx of Quebecers who claim BC, AB, SK, MB, & ON as part of their home knowing that with the next Canadian election (no elections in Quebec, French law has priests in charge) that Quebecois will be the majority and once they are in power can adopt French law - a side affect would be making French the national language, hope you studied.

Anyone can see how flawed the attempt is to analogize the Mid-East conflict with any other.

Historic Palestine is really Historic Israel. "Palestine" is what the Romans called the area and the British picked up. During the Ottoman Empire rule it was known as the province of lower Syria. During the rule of the Babylonian kings the area was know as the Kingdom of Israel (as noted in stone tablet tax rolls dated from that era. Israel paid tribute to the more powerful Assyrians and Babylonians).

As others have said, if Israel was pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing, they are doing the worst job in history.

Want to see ethnic cleansing done right look a little South West of Israel - no Jews in Gaza, No Jewish businesses in Gaza, no synagogues in Gaza, no Jews allowed to visit Gaza. No Jews allowed in Saudi Arabia or Syria either.
There a few Jews in Iran, but they are basically showpiece hostages - someone has to stand trial for being an Israeli spy every few years.

IF Israel were really trying to do as you say, then please explain the Arab businesses operating through out the country? Or the Mosques in Jaffa, Acco, and Nazareth (among other cities)? Or the Muslim/Arab members of Parliament? Or the Arab Cabinet Minister?

Having a problem with Israel's settlement policy in Judea & Sameria is a legit position. Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 boarders would bring about peace is also a legit position. Accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing or that "they seem to believe [Arabs] are subhuman." is boarderline antisemitic. Accusing Israel of this is subtext for the ages old accusation that Jews fundamentally believe they are the "Chosen People" and that gentiles are beneath them.

Finally someone hit the nail on the head!
Well said!

[blankall]

I don't really see how the Jews havign a homeland in Israel is any different than the Germans having a homeland in Germany, the Poles having a homeland in Poland, the Russians having a homeland in Russia, the Indians having a homeland in India, etc etc etc....

Israel is for whatever reason singled out. This despite the fact it is 25% arab/muslim (not counting the Gaza Strip/West Bank).

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by T@T

Your two people...one person can't be this dumb.

If you must run around telling people they're dumb, you should at least ensure your post doesn't contain errors most kids in grade seven no longer make.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by blankall

The Jews having a homeland in Israel is any different than the Germans having a homeland in Germany, the Poles having a homeland in Poland, the Russians having a homeland in Russia, the Indians having a homeland in India, etc etc etc...

Which is essentially what Zionism is - The national aspiration of the Jewish People to have/live in a Jewish State in their ancestral homeland.
Not some religious extremism (though there are religious extremists who are Zionists, same as there are Jewish religious extremists who are not Zionists).

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Want to see ethnic cleansing done right look a little South West of Israel - no Jews in Gaza, No Jewish businesses in Gaza, no synagogues in Gaza, no Jews allowed to visit Gaza. No Jews allowed in Saudi Arabia or Syria either.
There a few Jews in Iran, but they are basically showpiece hostages - someone has to stand trial for being an Israeli spy every few years.

IF Israel were really trying to do as you say, then please explain the Arab businesses operating through out the country? Or the Mosques in Jaffa, Acco, and Nazareth (among other cities)? Or the Muslim/Arab members of Parliament? Or the Arab Cabinet Minister?

Having a problem with Israel's settlement policy in Judea & Sameria is a legit position. Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 boarders would bring about peace is also a legit position. Accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing or that "they seem to believe [Arabs] are subhuman." is boarderline antisemitic. Accusing Israel of this is subtext for the ages old accusation that Jews fundamentally believe they are the "Chosen People" and that gentiles are beneath them.

You've got some good points in your post, but I really have to disagree with your characterization of the Gaza strip. If it is an example of ethnic cleansing, then it's the only instance of a population ethnically cleansing itself. Israel voluntarily and unilaterally dismantled all of its own settlements there and removed the roughly 9000 Jews, almost all of whom had moved into the strip during the post 1967 settlement period. Just as the poster you were criticizing, you're throwing the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' around in a complete baseless way.

And the 25,000 Jews living in Iran would disagree with your characterization of them as 'showpiece hostages'. While life is far from easy for them, they do have freedom to maintain synagogues and practice their faith, the are allowed their own schools, cemetaries, newspapers, and hospitals. Despite being strongly anti-zionist, the Iranian government has traditionally been very supportive of the Iranian Jewish community.
Despite financial incentives they would receive for emigrating to Israel, less than 200 (less than 1%) have left in the last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the obvious fraud of the most recent election resulted in an uptick in Jewish emigration, though nothing on the scale of the 20% of the Jewish population that left after the Islamic republic was formed.

You're completely right that it's important to separate the reality of the settlement policy from accusations of ethnic cleansing, but it defeats your arguments when you turn around and do exactly the same thing in your description of Iran.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

You've got some good points in your post, but I really have to disagree with your characterization of the Gaza strip. If it is an example of ethnic cleansing, then it's the only instance of a population ethnically cleansing itself. Israel voluntarily and unilaterally dismantled all of its own settlements there and removed the roughly 9000 Jews, almost all of whom had moved into the strip during the post 1967 settlement period. Just as the poster you were criticizing, you're throwing the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' around in a complete baseless way.

There were lots of Jews who wanted to stay. The Israeli government removed them because it was not safe for them to stay without military protection.

Leavign under the threat of violence hardly qualifies as a choice.

[zuluking]

So anyway, what about them organs?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by octothorp

You've got some good points in your post, but I really have to disagree with your characterization of the Gaza strip. If it is an example of ethnic cleansing, then it's the only instance of a population ethnically cleansing itself. Israel voluntarily and unilaterally dismantled all of its own settlements there and removed the roughly 9000 Jews, almost all of whom had moved into the strip during the post 1967 settlement period.

Fair enough. Israel did remove the Jewish population of Gaza and Israel is the country that is refusing Jews entry into Gaza. But Israel did not dismantle the buildings and businesses in Gaza - the Gazans did, against the pleas of Gazans who worked at those businesses and felt they could run them.

It is not just that the people were removed but everything associated with them was destroyed rather than made use of.

And the 25,000 Jews living in Iran would disagree with your characterization of them as 'showpiece hostages'. While life is far from easy for them, they do have freedom to maintain synagogues and practice their faith, the are allowed their own schools, cemetaries, newspapers, and hospitals. Despite being strongly anti-zionist, the Iranian government has traditionally been very supportive of the Iranian Jewish community.
Despite financial incentives they would receive for emigrating to Israel, less than 200 (less than 1%) have left in the last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the obvious fraud of the most recent election resulted in an uptick in Jewish emigration, though nothing on the scale of the 20% of the Jewish population that left after the Islamic republic was formed.

I am not sure about that. Iranian Jews that I have spoken with in Toronto tell stories of how they were lucky to get out when the Shah was disposed, how relatives cannot get travel visas for more than a single family member at a time. They are the poster community for the Muslim Dhimmis - see how well we treat the Jews here, they have their own community and services (but cannot travel abroad freely, and cannot speak freely with being accused of spying for Israel).

http://http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2003/March/Jews/

The above links to an article from 2003 that highlights the difficulties of the Iranian Jewish community.

I guess the argument can be made either way that they have not left because they do not want to or because they can not.

You're completely right that it's important to separate the reality of the settlement policy from accusations of ethnic cleansing, but it defeats your arguments when you turn around and do exactly the same thing in your description of Iran.

How does it defeat my argument to put forth examples of countries that have rid themselves of an unwanted minority?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by zuluking

So anyway, what about them organs?

Once the story gains legs I would not be surprised if a number of lawsuits were launched from many angles - relatives suing the hospitals, doctors, IDF - anyone who may have been in the know.

I for one would not be adverse to a law making organ donation after death mandatory.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by blankall

There were lots of Jews who wanted to stay. The Israeli government removed them because it was not safe for them to stay without military protection.

Leavign under the threat of violence hardly qualifies as a choice.

Although there was much violence by Palestinian terrorists, it wasn't this threat of violence toward the settlers that caused them to be removed. Sharon forced them to move primarily to gain political leverage with the US, which was successful in the letter that Bush sent two months later, backing several tenants of Sharon's proposed resolution, including the relocation of Palistinian refugees into Gaza rather than into their previous homelands throughout Israel. Essentially, Sharon was advocating population exchange as a solution to the violence. You can dispute whether population exchange counts as ethnic cleansing (borderline, but I don't think it does), but that solution came entirely from Sharon. The Palestinian solution has always been in support of the Arab Peace Initiative, which has a lot of flaws, but allows for Israel to maintain some settlements inside Palestine and for Palestine to maintain settlements inside Israel.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Although there was much violence by Palestinian terrorists, it wasn't this threat of violence toward the settlers that caused them to be removed. Sharon forced them to move primarily to gain political leverage with the US, which was successful in the letter that Bush sent two months later, backing several tenants of Sharon's proposed resolution, including the relocation of Palistinian refugees into Gaza rather than into their previous homelands throughout Israel. Essentially, Sharon was advocating population exchange as a solution to the violence. You can dispute whether population exchange counts as ethnic cleansing (borderline, but I don't think it does), but that solution came entirely from Sharon. The Palestinian solution has always been in support of the Arab Peace Initiative, which has a lot of flaws, but allows for Israel to maintain some settlements inside Palestine and for Palestine to maintain settlements inside Israel.

Are you maintaining that Jews wouldn't be at risk of violence in the Hamas run Gaza strip. Even if they chose to confine themselves to historically Jewish neighbourhoods?

I agree Sharon was an advocate of population exchange, but that doesn't change the fact it has been unsafe for Jews to live in the muslim and arab world for quite some time. Israel has motivations for bringing these Jews into Israel, but that is not the only motivation for them leaving. It's a push and pull scenario. They are being pulled by the Israeli government and pushed by the arab/muslim governments simultaneously.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

And the 25,000 Jews living in Iran would disagree with your characterization of them as 'showpiece hostages'. While life is far from easy for them, they do have freedom to maintain synagogues and practice their faith, the are allowed their own schools, cemetaries, newspapers, and hospitals. Despite being strongly anti-zionist, the Iranian government has traditionally been very supportive of the Iranian Jewish community.
Despite financial incentives they would receive for emigrating to Israel, less than 200 (less than 1%) have left in the last year. I wouldn't be surprised if the obvious fraud of the most recent election resulted in an uptick in Jewish emigration, though nothing on the scale of the 20% of the Jewish population that left after the Islamic republic was formed.

You're completely right that it's important to separate the reality of the settlement policy from accusations of ethnic cleansing, but it defeats your arguments when you turn around and do exactly the same thing in your description of Iran.

You still haven't explained why 90% of Iranian Jews no longer live in Iran.

It takes more than slight economic incentives for you to leave your property, home, career, friends, and family behind.

Of the entire muslim/arab world Iran has the highest population of remaining Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...rom_Arab_lands

Dramatic examples of decreases in Jewish populations:

1948 population Current population

Morocco 250,000 5,000
Iraq 135,000 200
Lybia 38,000 0

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by blankall

You still haven't explained why 90% of Iranian Jews no longer live in Iran.

It takes more than slight economic incentives for you to leave your property, home, career, friends, and family behind.

Of the entire muslim/arab world Iran has the highest population of remaining Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...rom_Arab_lands

Dramatic examples of decreases in Jewish populations:

1948 population Current population

Morocco 250,000 5,000
Iraq 135,000 200
Lybia 38,000 0

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. As you point out, Iran has the highest number of remaining Jews of an muslim country. That would say to me that it has not been ethnically cleansed. Are you arguing that it has been despite the 25,000 still left?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. As you point out, Iran has the highest number of remaining Jews of an muslim country. That would say to me that it has not been ethnically cleansed. Are you arguing that it has been despite the 25,000 still left?

Yes, it has been ethnically cleansed of 90% of the Jews who live there. The fact that so many has left is evidence towards things being not so great for Jews in Iran.

[Calgaryborn]

Israel was wrong for harvesting organs without permission. We treat our dead with dignity because they are the vessels that carried the ones we loved. It is the immediate family's responsibility to determine how best to honor their loved ones if the deceased didn't leave specific instructions. This determination should never fall to the State.

I can understand the temptation of a hospital to utilize what was available to save lives but it can't be morally justified. Human cadavers are a great source of fertilizer as well. Yet even the poorest countries don't stoop to utilizing their dead for such a purpose.