Israeli Mayor wants East Jerusalem youths shot for stone-throwing

Of course when a country acts with such lack of morality - apartheid state, killing children, defiling another religion it has to find a way to hide and of course with Israel it is behind anti-Semitism. We would all be in favour of Apartheid States, killing of children and defiling of religion if only we were not antisemetic. Two recent ways in which Israel is trying to take care of this is by making Israel's definition of anti-Semitism an International Crime

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/04/1...mitism-recognized-as-an-international-crime/#

and to stop freedom of speech on Campus in the US by calling it such.

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25...lif-demanding-ban-excessive-israel-criticism/

Americans will be unable to say they have any more freedom of speech than previous communist countries and will be the laugh of the world if this comes to pass ....but Israel is desperate and will do anything to make people lie.

 

"Because there was never an <independent> Pal State... Israel is in its own realm."
No it doesn't. West Bank would have to be regarded as part of state of Israel which it never has been.

 

You aren't refuting what I said. The people I cited like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Sheryl Sandberg make an extreme amount of money yet they are liberal; if liberals hated people who are successful they would be conservative.

 

Like the hate for Jews, it is selective.

 

You aren't arguing it's selective. You are saying liberals hate successful people. This would mean most if not all successful people would be conservatives I mentioned Sherly Sandberg, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Matt Groeing, Matt Damon, Leonardo Decarpi, Tom Hanks etc. would be conservative instead they are liberal since you claim liberals hate successful people like them.

 

Yeah, so liberals attack wealth all the time, but it is selective. That's the point I didn't make clear.

 

They don't attack having wealth as bad(if liberals viewed as having wealth bad there wouldn't be any rich liberals when as noted before there are plenty examples). They don't like how most of the growth is going to the upper class(one study showed top 1 percent captured 95 percent of income gains for 2009-2012 amounting to 30 percent in increase of income for top 1 percent while rest income grew by 0.5 percent) instead of wealth also going to middle and lower classes, they also don't like income not growing substantially for middle and lower class(example is Median per capita income in United States was $18,700 in 2010 when adjusted for inflation unchanged from 2000, in comparison between 2000-2010 median per capita income grew by 20 percent in United Kingdom, in Netherlands 14 percent, in Canada 20 percent reaching the same level of median per capita income as United States). Gini index which measures income disparities in countries; United States is the highest in the industrialized world at 45(in 1997 it was 40.8. In comparison Israel know for high cost of living and wide gap between rich and poor spawning mass social justice protests in 2011; which also has caused white knight parties Kulanu and Yesh Atid to be created in the last two elections has a better gini index score of 37.6. In comparison to rest of the West Scandinavian countries have scores like Sweden (24.9), other Western countries like Canada (32.1), Netherlands (25.1), and Australia (30), are lower). Even countries like Russia (42) and Iran(44.5) have better Gini index scores.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...-95-percent-income-gains-last-few-years-have/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/u...le-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html#sw

If liberals view having wealth itself as bad than the poorer states(which tends to be areas like the South) should be liberal and the richer states(states that tend to be in areas like Northeast New England area) should be conservative. However, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis in 2012 Connecticut has the highest per capita income followed by Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maryland all liberal states while the five poorest are Mississippi followed by Idaho, South Carolina, West Virgina, and Utah all conservative states.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html

Last year there was a study done by the personal finance website wallethub using data from U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. The study ranked states on how rich they are. The metrics was income, GDP per capita, and tax dollars per capita with income given a double weight. For population adjusted rankings the top 5 are Maryland, Alaska, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Connecticut all liberal except for Alaska. The 5 poorest are Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Alabama all conservative all in the South too. For ranking not adjusted with population the top 5 are California, Texas, New York, Illinois, and Florida. Of these states only Texas and Florida(although not as conservative as it voted for Obama the last two elections). The 5 poorest not adjusted for population are Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, and North Dakota. All except Vermont are conservative. The states with higher % of households earning 200,000 or more is New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, and Massachusetts. All are liberal. The states with least % of households earning 200,000 or more are Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Idaho again all Conservative and in the South except for Idaho. The states with most % of households in earning between $100,000-$199,000 are Alaska,Maryland, Hawaii, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. All liberal except for Alaska. The states with lowest % of households in earning between $100,000-$199,000 are Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, South Dakota, and Kentucky. All Conservative and in the South except for Idaho and South Dakota. The average income ranking for liberal states was 18.41 and for Conservative states was 34.25.
https://wallethub.com/edu/richest-and-poorest-states/7392/

So again, the claim that liberals attacking having wealth doesn't have any basis(if they did then the South would be bastion for liberals since as shown above since they have less wealth than other states) especially when many of the wealthiest in the world are liberal.

Earlier you also claim that liberals hate Jews. Most liberals don't. While some of those in the extreme left that think Israel shouldn't have a right to exist or compare Israel to the holocaust would be going to level of anti Semitic most liberals don't believe that. Jews themselves are one of the most liberal populations and much more liberal than general public in United States with pew report noting
&#8220;Jews are among the most strongly liberal, Democratic groups in U.S. politics,&#8221; the Pew report said. &#8220;There are more than twice as many self-identified Jewish liberals as conservatives, while among the general public, this balance is nearly reversed. In addition, about seven-in-ten Jews identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party. Jews are more supportive of President Barack Obama(69% of Jews voted for him in 2012 compared to 30% for Romney, 78% in 2008 for Obama compared to 22% McCain, 76% for Kerry in 2004 compared to 24% for Bush, 79% for Gore in 2000 compared to 19% for Bush) than are most other religious groups. And about eight-in-ten Jews say homosexuality should be accepted by society.&#8221;
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
http://www.jewishjournal.com/bill_boyarsky/article/pew_finds_jews_mostly_liberal

 

It is true what you say in your post that although stones can kill, Jews who do so are given very much lighter sentences by the Israeli courts who never imprison Jewish children but impose harsh penalties on Palestinian minors and children routinely. It is, in other words, an Apartheid judicial system. Around 200 East Jerusalem minors are in Ofek Prison, which houses only minors, most on charges of disturbing the peace; 70 are there for throwing stones at security forces and vehicles. For example, recently a 16-year-old Palestinian got 10 months in prison for throwing a stone at a bus. In contrast, when Jews disturb the peace, the court rarely finds them guilty, and if it does, they don’t get more than three months, while no Jewish minors are sentenced to prison at all.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.677685

 

Le grand BS here...
The West Bank aka Judea and Samaria were part and parcel of the Jewish Home.
When Jordan's army led by British Officer conquered this part of Israel, it subjugated it for 19 years... Nineteen years is a drop in the bucket in history... after the IDF made Jordanians run for their lives behind the Jordan river

 

2,000 years ago

 

We aren't talking about the ancient Jewish kingdoms by that logic what Iran is doing in the middle east by controlling Lebanon and Iraq through proxies is legal since Lebanon and Iraq used to be part of their ancient empires, we are talking about the current state of Israel, West Bank(with East Jerusalem and Golan Height annexations not recognized by any other country) has never been a part of it.

 

Really????????????????????????????????????
A little knowledge is calamitous... MOD EDIT - Rule 3 ... This is not in reality always the truth.

Judea and Samaria are two <Jewish Names> soooooooo even that it seems, is denied no recognized... WOW! Well we agree to disagree... I must laugh it loudly when you recognize Iraq as part of Iran historically but Judea and Samaria are not part of Israel.

 

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is Occupied Palestine.

 

I never said Judea and Samaria aren't two Jewish names. No one denies there were ancient Jewish kingdoms in Palestine. However we aren't talking about those kingdoms. We are talking about the state of Israel. The fact is West Bank has never belong to the state of Israel(it belonged to those ancient Jewish kingdoms but again we aren't talking about them we are talking about the state of Israel) with both East Jerusalem and Golan Height annexations not recognized by any other country.

I never recognized Iraq as part of Iran. I said by your logic what Iran is doing in Lebanon and Iraq is legal since both of those were part of the Persian empire. By your logic Russia annexing Crimea is legal since Crimea and Ukraine was once part of the Russian empires. What governs territory is not if someone's people has lived there first. If that was so then it would also be legal for Native Americans, Maoris, and Aboriginals to rise up against their respective governments. What determines who governs territory is sovereignty of countries(which would be make up of world after WW2 and decolonization, efforts of that is seen today most noticeable in Syria and Iraq) and self determination with rules of war governed by 1907 Hague Regulations and after WW2 also by 1948 Geneva Conventions. It's also important to note that dna tests show that part to majority of population of Palestinians are descended from population residing in Palestine at time of Islamic conquest in the 7th century that were Christians and Jews that converted to Islam(most of them except for some exceptions like the mad caliph of the Fatimid didn't force Jews and Christians to convert and viewed them as dhimmi people of the book that were protected; as part of dhimmi they were discriminated against like forcing to pay jizya tax which varied from the many different Islamic empires).

 

Sargon 2 settled four Arab tribes in Samaria while the Jews were in exile in Babylon.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget the Shaaba Farms and the Golan Heights.

Heavens, the Israelis destroyed some 60 Druze Villages to make it their own.

 

Links to dna studies from previous post.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Nebel-HG-00-IPArabs.pdf
http://www.ibric.org/science/97now/00_10now/001030a.html

 

There is not a single family in Palestine that hasn't lost a home or farm, olive groves or family and loved ones to the Zionist aggression.

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3
For All Muslims in Israel walk around with a <halo> on their heads...

 

Israeli "non-lethal" sniper bullets have killed four Palestinians
The Israeli human rights organization B'Ttselem yesterday called on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to cease using a .22 caliber bullet - known in the army as the Toto bullet - to disperse demonstrations, and to refrain from using live ammunition in circumstances that do not pose a danger to human life. B'Ttselem's call followed the release of the conclusions of a preliminary investigation into the death of a Palestinian boy in Aida refugee camp on Monday. "The investigation found that Abed a-Rahman Abdallah, 13, had been hit in the chest by a Toto bullet fired from a Ruger sniper's rifle." At least four Palestinians, including Abdallah, have been killed by sniper bullets and dozens wounded, some of them seriously, since the beginning of the year.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.679081


Although the Ruger sniper's rifle used by the IDF occupiers is also equipped with a scope for precision shooting by marksmen, the IDF claimed that the boy was shot by accident. Seriously.

 

I imagine when protesters (LOL protesters, more like violent rioters) use rubber stones then the severity of the deterrent will likewise be reciprocated. Anyhow, they are free to throw a rock at an inanimate object and then turn themselves in for prosecution but since they don't, deadly force must be met with like.

 

Just out of curiousity, has there ever been an Israeli soldier killed by a stone in the past, say, seventy years?

 

Live ammunition should be only used if it's required, ie only in life threatening situations; stones being thrown by demonstrators/rioters(agree that protesters isn't the accurate term) against soldiers is not. In situations where it's not life threatening rubber bullets should be used. In other circumstances like stones being thrown against cars is a different situation as that is a life threatening situation that has caused deaths in the past. Also, when Jewish settlers throw stones against soldiers and Arabs and there is no similar procedure of using live fire against them. Until nothing is done address the situation, occupation and it's associated acts like extremist settlers, house demolition, etc. and in the case of Jerusalem decades of neglect of Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem this cycle of violence being done by both sides won't end.

 

Strange that the 'protesters' are throwing non lethal rocks then as rocks are rumored to have killed more people than any other weapon in the history of man. As I suggested, rubber rocks would possibly create a likewise response however, a lethal 'demonstration' is sure to garner the like response. Lesson - don't throw rocks that can hurt people, no government in the world would send in troops or police unarmed to counter such a 'protest.'

 

Don't know. Had them thrown at me in Egypt and when in Palestine and they are dangerous. Wondering, has anybody ever been killed by rock throwing in your reality or is it just a sham when executions by stoning occur in some Muslim countries?

 

Hellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooo...

The Mandate for Palestine was intended for the <reconstitution> of the Jewish Home, the Mandate was for the <reconstitution of the Jewish Home> was a <WHOLE> until the Brits surreptitiously yanked 77% of it to <CREATE> a fiction called Jordan today...
soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 23% of it the remainder is Jewish today!!!