Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Israel/Palestine

shira

(30,109 posts)

5. No, they're not. In WW2 forcible transfer meant Jews on trains to death camps.

Reply to aranthus (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 9, 2016, 06:41 PM

Oct 2016

There's no comparison.

In fact, there are "settlers" in other occupied territories throughout the world today and no one calls any of that forced transfer or a violation of Geneva. Those people transferring into occupied territory (from Russia, China, Morocco, Armenia, Indonesia, Vietnam....) aren't even called "settlers" in "settlements".

When there's no other precedent other than Israel, that's called discrimination.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Palestine, Uti Possidetis Juris, and the Borders of Israel [View all] Mosby Oct 2016 OP

Wow, that's a strong legal case for the bi-national state - I didn't know you were a one-stater... Little Tich Oct 2016 #1

Only as to outside claimants. aranthus Oct 2016 #2

The Settlements vs. the Peace Process Israeli Oct 2016 #3

Of course they are forcible transfers. aranthus Oct 2016 #4

No, they're not. In WW2 forcible transfer meant Jews on trains to death camps. shira Oct 2016 #5