Sounds a lot like a home invasion where your assailant decides to be generous and "give you back" your living room, part of the kitchen, and most of one bedroom. This isn't Let's Make a Deal. Israel is in no moral position to issue such proposals.
Let's not forget that historically there is no sovereign Palestine prior to the creation of Israel. "Palestine" was a British holding and before WWI, a part of the Ottoman Empire--Palestinian nationalism as a movement begins in the 1930's. Therefore there would be no "giving back" because the Palestinians never actually possessed the land in the first place.
But don't get me wrong, I don't condone the actions of Israel in this current war (and really we have to start calling it that) or really any of their post-1967 military actions. But the "there can never be justice on stolen land" argument is such a dead end. You have to accept the situation being what it is so you can move on and constructively think of ways to solve the problem rather than look at either side as being either completely in the right or completely in the wrong.
With the exception of a few, there's too many emotions and personal bias clouding rational, objective viewpoints.
I think it's been going pretty well, considering the touchy subject matter. Of course, there's always this next touchy...
Also,
Earlier, someone posted a beautiful rhetorical to the tune of-- "When Afghanistan was bombed post 9/11 where was the protest then?" In response to that poster: You're kidding, right? The whole absurd notion of "collateral damage" was the subject of many a deserved protest and political outrage. Were you relying on mainstream US media sources, exclusively, as your window to the world at the time?
I think you're referring to a post I made. At the time I was living in San Francisco, epicenter of the tepid protest movement against the Afghanistan action, and let me tell you from my vantage point it was nowhere near the strength, the bredth, or the focus of the protests we've seen against casualties in Iraq. And deservedly so IMO because Iraq is far, far worse - and far far less justifiable.
With the exception of a few, there's too many emotions and personal bias clouding rational, objective viewpoints.
I think it's been going pretty well, considering the touchy subject matter.
Co-sign.
For one thing, the topic of Israel, the Middle East, etc. has popped up on numerous occasions on Strut but never with the degree on depth and information being thrown in. Are there some overheated opinions and blinder-like bias? Yeah, sure but we could be talking about - say, free jazz - and you'd find silly debates there too. I actually think this has been a very illuminating conversation and I also think it - and of course, the world events - have been pushing people to learn more on their own. I can say, for my part, I've learned more about this issue - from ALL SIDES of perspective - in the last two weeks than my entire lifetime prior even though I consider myself a decent consumer of news.
Unfortunately, I'm still left pretty ambivalent about where to stand on a variety of issues. Especially around the historical issues concerning Israel's very creation and whether or not they can be rightfully termed a colonizing state or not, it's hard to cut through the opposing historical data. As I've said before though, perhaps realpolitik necessitates a permanent shelving of that issue ("leave it to the historians" said one of my friends even though he leans pro-Palestinian) in order to affect a contemporary solution.
A question on this level: what are the immigration controls set in Israel? I know the Jewish Right of Return says that any Jew has the right to move to Israel and become a citizen. How about Arabs?
[quote} Unfortunately, I'm still left pretty ambivalent about where to stand on a variety of issues. Especially around the historical issues concerning Israel's very creation and whether or not they can be rightfully termed a colonizing state or not, it's hard to cut through the opposing historical data. As I've said before though, perhaps realpolitik necessitates a permanent shelving of that issue (leave it to the historians said one of my friends even though he leans pro-Palestinian) in order to affect a contemporary solution.
A question on this level: what are the immigration controls set in Israel? I know the Jewish Right of Return says that any Jew has the right to move to Israel and become a citizen. How about Arabs? I don't think Israel can be considered a colonial state because there is no Jewish motherland for the Jewish "settlers" of pre-1967 Israel. To refer to the entire entity in terms of a colonial experiment is to implicitly say the Jewish state is not legitimate. Now, there was a war in 1948 where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from the territory that is now for lack of a better term "lesser Israel." Palestinians call this al-Nachba, the left often uncritically accepts their version of events. But the original state of Israel--as established under the 1948 partition was even smaller and relegated to the lands where there was a Jewish majority. Even this was unacceptable to the Arab monarchies and Palestinian Mufti at the time that declared war when Ben Gurion declared independence. Israel won that war and the borders of pre-1967 were established. So were many Palestinian refugees. Many Palestinians also stayed. And while they may not join the army, and have historically been discriminated against by the government in Israel--Palestinian israelis nonetheless have more political and economic rights than almost everyone else living under Arab tyranny. And their treatment has improved over time. Around the same time after Israel was created, Jews in the Arab world were kicked out of their countries and forced to move to Israel.
Thanks for that breakdown but it still didn't address my central question: if one is NOT Jewish, what are the immigration rule governing migration into Israel?
Also, I can't remember if Rootless or someone else noted this but if the Arab minority in Israel ever becomes a majority (birth rate/immigration/etc.) how will that effect internal Israeli politics and power?
Which is my point, exactly. And historically, anti-Semetism was a significantly less pronounced political force in the region than it has been throughout Europe's history. The creation of Israel was a massive influx of white Europeans taking over a land to which they have no geographic claim. It was created in a manner every bit as dubious as Europeans "buying" American land from Indians. It's still a resort for white people in the Middle East, and at the risk of sounding un-diplomatic-- No, that does not have the right to exist. [/b] Defending Israel's purported right to exist in the Middle East is a lot like defending Sun City Resort South Africa.
you're not allowed to tell someone to leave just because they don't agree with you.
Perhaps you should leave, if you can't deal with viewpoints different than your own.
easy son. I have done my fair share of responding in here, and particularly to those that disagree with me and with whom I disagree. but dude is way out of line and by his own admission did not even read the thread before blowing in here with his half-baked schitt on the tenth page. I happen to agree that this is an interesting debate that has so far been conducted with respect. I respected your opinions, for instance, even if I think you're a tool. now go back and read dude's post and ask yourself if it warrants a response. then if you still want to stoop to the little dude's level, be my guest.
I respected your opinions for instance, even if I think you're a tool
awesome, the name calling certainly makes you look rational and well-reasoned
Now that's a level I won't be stooping to.
I read dude's post in full and while I disagree with him, he didn't call anyone names (like you just did), he made a reasonable argument that is made by many people and while you may disagree with it to say he should leave or not be responded to is, to me, not in the spirit of good debate.
I respected your opinions for instance, even if I think you're a tool
awesome, the name calling certainly makes you look rational and well-reasoned
Now that's a level I won't be stooping to.
I read dude's post in full and while I disagree with him, he didn't call anyone names (like you just did), he made a reasonable argument that is made by many people and while you may disagree with it to say he should leave or not be responded to is, to me, not in the spirit of good debate.
Johnny,
I just think it's ironic that some were mentioning how respectful this conversation has been and then dude comes in:
1. without having even read the thread; and
2. asserting flippantly that Israel has no right to exist as his point of departure.
And he asserts this on the basis of some wholly-uninformed fantasy of Israel as "a resort" rather than as a very real, concrete expression of the national sovereignty of a people. Dude is lazy and has not taken the time to consider the opinions that have already been expressed, nor the basic facts of the debate.
Now the very right of Israel to exist may be an academic issue for you. But please understand that for some of us it isn't.
Thanks for that breakdown but it still didn't address my central question: if one is NOT Jewish, what are the immigration rule governing migration into Israel?
I'm not entirely sure on the details here. Jews obviously have the easiest time immigrating (like those with Irish ancestry do to Ireland, those with German ancestry to Germany, etc.). It is not uncommon for Arabs/Palestinians to receive ciitzenship within the context of family unification (the most common scenario being an Israeli Arab who marries a Palestinian from Gaza or the W. Bank).
Also, I can't remember if Rootless or someone else noted this but if the Arab minority in Israel ever becomes a majority (birth rate/immigration/etc.) how will that effect internal Israeli politics and power?
Well, I had this admittedly emotional response in the other Right of Return thread:
1. While it is true that between 500K and 600K Arabs fled or were otherwise forced out during Israel's War of Independence which the Arabs started, any discussion of the so-called "right of return" that doesn't mention the 800 000 sephardi/mizrachi Jews (from Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Lebanon, Morrocco, etc.) that were forced from their homes is racist. It assumes that the Arab grievances are superior. See, Israel absorbed its refugees and paid dearly for it. But they built a successful state in the process (despite that internal arab documents from the War of Independence actually allude to the expulsion of the Jews from Arab and Muslim countries as a concerted effort to overwhelm Israel economically with refugees). Well that didn't work out. And Israel now pays a price for its success because the Palestinians can point to middle class Israelis (albeit three generations later - Israel was poor at the outset) and cry no fair. Meanwhile an Arab middle East flush with oil wealth and foreign aid has done absolutely nothing for these people.
2. An unspoken, bedrock principle of the "negotiating process" has been that Jews must evacuate any territory slated for a Palestinian state. Meanwhile 1 million Palestinians live in Israel . So implementation of the "right of return" means an ethnically-pure Jew-free state of Palestine (to be created at some point in the coming years) and a 2nd, 60%-70% Palestinians state (formerly known as Israel, now composed mostly of Palestinians, their children, their grandchildren, etc.) that would soon be closer to 100% Arab given their higher birthrates and the inevitable flight of Jews due to intolerant Islamic norms and anti-Jewish violence. A 23rd Arab state (Palestine), and eventually a 24th one (formerly Israel, now Palestine II). Sound fair? No more Jewish state, and the pan-Arab and Islamist dreams are that much closer to realization. Next stop Spain. Don't think it can't happen.
3. Finally, it's hard to take the "right of return" arguments seriously when this so-called right has been historically championed almost solely by people who (a) wanted to see Israel done away with anyway (many Palestinians and Arab governments), or (b) didn't want Palestinians in their country (the Arab and racist Western governments currently hosting the refugees and their descendents).
But the basic logic of Paragraph 2 is, I think, sound. This would be the result if a right of return was actually implemented (rather than just recognized in principle).
As to how that would effect the internal Israeli politics? It's hard to imagine, given that this would represent the end of Israel as we recognize it today. There would be violence within Israel. And there would certainly be a hardening of positions among the Zionist political parties: as the Jews became outnumbered and threatened you would probably see the rise of more militaristic political parties.
But at the end of the day make no mistake: we are talking about the dissolution of the State of Israel as we know it.
Just a thought on the state of Arab-Jewish relations within Israel: While there have always been Arab political parties in Israel (and non-ethnically-affiliated parties such as the Communist Hadash party that nonetheless commanded widespread Arab support), it was not at all uncommon up through the 90's for large segments of the Arab public to vote for Zionist parties (Meretz and Labor mostly). These parties had a more peace-oriented platform and were seen (however rightly or wrongly) as more sensitive to the needs of the Arab sector than the more Right parties such as Likud.
I can remember traveling through the heavily Arab Wadi Ara area in the North of Israel and seeing Labor or Meretz flags and banners in the towns and villages. I traveled the same roads in March and saw Hezbollah flags. This is in Israel.
Does the Israeli government bear some responsbility for the alienation of the Arab sector? Absolutely. Successive Israeli governments pursued policies that, while not actively discriminating against the Arab citizens of Israel, largely ignored them. The Jews in power focussed on strengthening Israel as a Jewish State, since this was its aim.
That said, Israeli Arabs reaped benefits. They achieved what is among the highest standards of living of any Arab population in the Middle East (infant mortality rates lower even than those of African Americans). That they achieved such a standard of living as a minority group within a Middle Eastern state is nothing short of amazing.
Do the Israeli Arabs experience racism? Absolutely. Should they bow their heads and accept the racism they may experience in the private sector? No way. They should fight for full equality. But seeing them embrace terrorist groups that have the destruction of Israel as their ultimate goal is VERY disheartening (particularly in light of the fact that poll data reveals a CLEAR preference among Israeli Arabs to remain in Israel upon the eventual creation of a Palestinian state.
Anyway that's my biggest concern: Arab-Jewish relations within Israel. I hope they can step away from the brink and start building real national cohesion again.
Many fleeing civilians have been waving white flags
Thousands of people are struggling to leave southern Lebanon, as Israel continues air strikes and ground raids. Israel issued a specific warning to civilians in 14 villages, telling them to leave by Saturday evening.
Later, the Israeli military said its forces had taken the village of Maroun al-Ras, thought to have been the launch site for rocket attacks against Israel.
The UN humanitarian chief is en route to Beirut, as the UN seeks to secure safe routes out for fleeing civilians.
The UN's Jan Egeland said half a million people needed assistance - and the number was likely to increase.
As concerns about hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians grew, Israel eased restrictions on the country's blockaded ports to allow aid into the country.
Perilous escape from Tyre
Despite building up troops and tanks along the border, Israel has insisted it has no plans for a large-scale invasion.
The warnings issued to 14 villages came a day after Israel dropped leaflets warning Lebanese civilians to flee a broad swathe of the south.
The BBC's Martin Asser in the southern city Tyre described long queues of taxis and cars negotiating bomb-cratered roads and making detours around destroyed bridges.
Many civilians from villages in the region had gathered in the city during the week and are now trying to leave. However, many people say they are reluctant to move without UN protection.
Ground incursions
On the 11th day of fighting, Israel continued air strikes and small-scale incursions into Lebanon.
Hezbollah has continued to fire rockets into Israel
Israeli jets knocked out TV and phone masts in the east and north of Lebanon, disrupting broadcasts for Hezbollah's Al-Manar television and the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation.
An Israeli military spokesman said the television and mobile phone networks were being used to spread the militant group's propaganda.
Hezbollah continued to fire dozens of rockets into Israel, hitting the towns of Carmiel, Kiryat Shmona and Nahariya, and wounding several Israelis.
Israeli soldiers also continued ground incursions. The Israeli military said its forces had taken control of the village of Maroun al-Ras, although exchanges of fire with Hezbollah fighters were still taking place.
Hezbollah militants defended the village for several days, killing six Israeli soldiers in heavy fighting.
Israel also briefly occupied the village of Marwahin, but have now withdrawn.
The army has said limited raids across the border will continue, targeting Hezbollah bunkers and tunnels that cannot be destroyed from the air.
Correspondents say Israeli troops are likely to push deeper and more frequently into Lebanon over the coming days.
'Terrorist group'
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is travelling to the Middle East on Sunday, as is German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier, who helped broker a prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah in 2004.
In his weekly radio address, US President George Bush said Ms Rice would "make it clear that resolving the crisis demands confronting the terrorist group that launched the attacks and the nations that support it".
He described Syria as "a primary sponsor" of Hezbollah, and accused Damascus of helping provide the group with Iranian weapons.
His comments followed report in the New York Times, citing US officials who said the US was rushing a delivery of satellite and laser-guided bombs to Israel.[/b]
The crisis was triggered by the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah militants on 12 July.
Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner told the BBC Israel was not interested in invading, conquering or occupying Lebanon, from where it withdraw troops in 2000.
"We only want to get rid of Hezbollah," he said.
It is thought Israel wants to set up a deep buffer zone in southern Lebanon to try to stop Hezbollah from using the area to launch rocket attacks.
But senior Lebanese officials have warned the country's army will go into battle if Israel invades.[/b]
More than 350 Lebanese have been killed in the 11 days of violence, many of them civilians.
Thirty-four Israelis have been killed, including 15 civilians killed by rockets fired by Hezbollah into Israel.
Which is my point, exactly. And historically, anti-Semetism was a significantly less pronounced political force in the region than it has been throughout Europe's history. The creation of Israel was a massive influx of white Europeans taking over a land to which they have no geographic claim. It was created in a manner every bit as dubious as Europeans "buying" American land from Indians. It's still a resort for white people in the Middle East, and at the risk of sounding un-diplomatic-- No, that does not have the right to exist. Defending Israel's purported right to exist in the Middle East is a lot like defending Sun City Resort South Africa.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your assumptions. You hold that Israel was created by white euros taking over land to which they had no claim and, hence, Israel has no right to exist. You consider this method of taking possession roughly equivalent the European conquest of the Americas, at least in terms of moral repugnancy. It seems to follow that the Americas also have no right to exist. Does this mean that the Americas should be dismantled and returned to Native Americans? I'm not being flippant; I genuinely want to know if this the only way you believe justice, or at least your conception of it, can be implemented. I'm also intrigued by the concept of "right of return" and what it might mean in a more general sense. Do I have a right of return to my grandparents' land in Poland and Romania? My family was there for two centuries before they were forced to leave. Do I have a right of return to Spain? My families' property and possessions were appropriated and they were expelled after at least four hundred years of living there. It???s said that relatives on my father???s side were originally English; do they have a right of return to England (from where they would have been expelled in 1290)? Do my cousins have a right of return to the Arab countries from which they were expelled in the forties? Do the Acadians have a right of return to Eastern Canada? Can the Moors reclaim their property and land taken from them by the Christians (or where the Christians merely exercising their right of return?) Do former slaves have a right of return to their historical homes?
These questions aren???t meant to imply any equivalency between these events and the founding of Israel, but merely to consider a potential right???s boundaries. In any event, history seems to suggest that the issue is largely academic.
Your comment about Israel being a "resort for white people" is astoundingly offensive.
Which is my point, exactly. And historically, anti-Semetism was a significantly less pronounced political force in the region than it has been throughout Europe's history. The creation of Israel was a massive influx of white Europeans taking over a land to which they have no geographic claim. It was created in a manner every bit as dubious as Europeans "buying" American land from Indians. It's still a resort for white people in the Middle East, and at the risk of sounding un-diplomatic-- No, that does not have the right to exist. Defending Israel's purported right to exist in the Middle East is a lot like defending Sun City Resort South Africa.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your assumptions. You hold that Israel was created by white euros taking over land to which they had no claim and, hence, Israel has no right to exist. You consider this method of taking possession roughly equivalent the European conquest of the Americas, at least in terms of moral repugnancy. It seems to follow that the Americas also have no right to exist. Does this mean that the Americas should be dismantled and returned to Native Americans? I'm not being flippant; I genuinely want to know if this the only way you believe justice, or at least your conception of it, can be implemented. I'm also intrigued by the concept of "right of return" and what it might mean in a more general sense. Do I have a right of return to my grandparents' land in Poland and Romania? My family was there for two centuries before they were forced to leave. Do I have a right of return to Spain? My families' property and possessions were appropriated and they were expelled after at least four hundred years of living there. It???s said that relatives on my father???s side were originally English; do they have a right of return to England (from where they would have been expelled in 1290)? Do my cousins have a right of return to the Arab countries from which they were expelled in the forties? Do the Acadians have a right of return to Eastern Canada? Can the Moors reclaim their property and land taken from them by the Christians (or where the Christians merely exercising their right of return?) Do former slaves have a right of return to their historical homes?
These questions aren???t meant to imply any equivalency between these events and the founding of Israel, but merely to consider a potential right???s boundaries. In any event, history seems to suggest that the issue is largely academic.
Your comment about Israel being a "resort for white people" is astoundingly offensive.
Just to add on to the cipher, the problem with this dude's post is that he does not account for what Israel has done in the last twenty years since the first Intifadah. The Jewish state tried to negotiate a two state solution that would have redivided their capital and the holiest city in Judaism; when that failed, they were faced with a terror war being fought by adolescents with bomb vests; they built a wall and started to unilaterally deoccupy the territory. There was a time when Palestinians living in West Bank and Gaza were non-citizens treated as day laborers. By 1993, they were negotiating partners. I am not saying Israel should get a cookie, but the country changed. It tried to redress as best it could the sin of occupation. Apartheid south africa--which you say is the equivalent of Israel--is defined by the policy (and a far more brutal one at that) of occupation, noncitizenship etc... As we have pointed out earlier, Palestinians in pre-67 Israel are citizens, with political parties etc...
To just ignore all of this recent history and context is not only offensive it's ignorant.
A Palestinian Israeli living within the pre-67 borders lives in an Apartheid system, that much is true. In the Occupied Territories, it's more like living under colonial administration, and we all know what Gandhi thought about that.
It is legal for an Israeli, or more precisely, a settler who does not recognize the state of Israel (pays no taxes, does no military service) to point an uzi at a Palestinian and appropriate his olive grove. The other way round is illegal.
But yes, there have been plenty of Jewish Israelis who have fought for Palestinian rights, just like in that film Biko.
A Palestinian Israeli living within the pre-67 borders lives in an Apartheid system, that much is true. In the Occupied Territories, it's more like living under colonial administration, and we all know what Gandhi thought about that.
It is legal for an Israeli, or more precisely, a settler who does not recognize the state of Israel (pays no taxes, does no military service) to point an uzi at a Palestinian and appropriate his olive grove. The other way round is illegal.
But yes, there have been plenty of Jewish Israelis who have fought for Palestinian rights, just like in that film Biko.
Just writing things does not make them true. These three paragraphs is agitprop. South African blacks living under Apartheid could not have a legal party, like the ANC. They could not attend the the country's universities, were not treated the same under the courts, I could go on. As I mentioned earlier, Palestinians living in Israel cannot join the army and in a highly militarized state this precludes them from coalition governments and high office. But their rights and economic conditions are not the same as Apartheid blacks. Under the peace process years, Khalil Shikaki polled Israeli Arabs and asked them whether they would want to live under a Palestinian Authority run state and almost all of them answered no.
It is not "legal" for a settler to confiscate land. Until recently these kinds of violations were ignored by the state. But no longer. Finally, the ANC in south africa never launched a terror war against white south africa. There were acts of terror, but nothing like what we saw from the Palestinians during and after the peace process.
Which is my point, exactly. And historically, anti-Semetism was a significantly less pronounced political force in the region than it has been throughout Europe's history. The creation of Israel was a massive influx of white Europeans taking over a land to which they have no geographic claim. It was created in a manner every bit as dubious as Europeans "buying" American land from Indians. It's still a resort for white people in the Middle East, and at the risk of sounding un-diplomatic-- No, that does not have the right to exist. Defending Israel's purported right to exist in the Middle East is a lot like defending Sun City Resort South Africa.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your assumptions. You hold that Israel was created by white euros taking over land to which they had no claim and, hence, Israel has no right to exist. You consider this method of taking possession roughly equivalent the European conquest of the Americas, at least in terms of moral repugnancy. It seems to follow that the Americas also have no right to exist. Does this mean that the Americas should be dismantled and returned to Native Americans? I'm not being flippant; I genuinely want to know if this the only way you believe justice, or at least your conception of it, can be implemented. I'm also intrigued by the concept of "right of return" and what it might mean in a more general sense. Do I have a right of return to my grandparents' land in Poland and Romania? My family was there for two centuries before they were forced to leave. Do I have a right of return to Spain? My families' property and possessions were appropriated and they were expelled after at least four hundred years of living there. It???s said that relatives on my father???s side were originally English; do they have a right of return to England (from where they would have been expelled in 1290)? Do my cousins have a right of return to the Arab countries from which they were expelled in the forties? Do the Acadians have a right of return to Eastern Canada? Can the Moors reclaim their property and land taken from them by the Christians (or where the Christians merely exercising their right of return?) Do former slaves have a right of return to their historical homes?
These questions aren???t meant to imply any equivalency between these events and the founding of Israel, but merely to consider a potential right???s boundaries. In any event, history seems to suggest that the issue is largely academic.
Your comment about Israel being a "resort for white people" is astoundingly offensive.
For arguments sake, by what you are saying above then wouldn't this mean that the zionists coming to Israel from other countries after the formation of the Israeli state, that technically were pushed off their land in Israel centuries ago would also not have that right to return?
I don't think anyone has issue with a people from that land that lived on that land for centuries up until the creation of Israel (whether palestinian or jewish) have the right to keep their land. I think what it boils down to is that once the jewish state was created that it became the rights of foreigners to claim their stake in israel. I guess I have a hard time ok'ing the right of return for one group of people while millions of other sects and groups have been displaced throughout human history and virtually never been given that "right of return".
A Palestinian Israeli living within the pre-67 borders lives in an Apartheid system, that much is true. In the Occupied Territories, it's more like living under colonial administration, and we all know what Gandhi thought about that.
It is legal for an Israeli, or more precisely, a settler who does not recognize the state of Israel (pays no taxes, does no military service) to point an uzi at a Palestinian and appropriate his olive grove. The other way round is illegal.
But yes, there have been plenty of Jewish Israelis who have fought for Palestinian rights, just like in that film Biko.
Just writing things does not make them true. These three paragraphs is agitprop. South African blacks living under Apartheid could not have a legal party, like the ANC. They could not attend the the country's universities, were not treated the same under the courts, I could go on. As I mentioned earlier, Palestinians living in Israel cannot join the army and in a highly militarized state this precludes them from coalition governments and high office. But their rights and economic conditions are not the same as Apartheid blacks. Under the peace process years, Khalil Shikaki polled Israeli Arabs and asked them whether they would want to live under a Palestinian Authority run state and almost all of them answered no.
It is not "legal" for a settler to confiscate land. Until recently these kinds of violations were ignored by the state. But no longer. Finally, the ANC in south africa never launched a terror war against white south africa. There were acts of terror, but nothing like what we saw from the Palestinians during and after the peace process.
Sorry for the delays between posts.
"Just writing things does not make them true." A very accurate statement. Reread your post. In it, you acknowledge (a) Palestinians cannot reasonably be said to posses the same degree of social agency as white Israelis and further (b) this difference in social standing is legally codified. These points alone are sufficient to give credence to the Apartheid analogy I earlier made. No amount of "but it's not as bad because . . ." reasoning/rhetoric is going to invalidate what we've now acknowledged as fact-- Palestinians and white Israelis are not of the same legal standing. Obfuscating the issue a is tad like arguing the merits of states that considered Black people 8/10 as opposed to 3/5 human beings.
[Let me also anticipate a question regarding my statement comparing anti-Semitism in the Middle East with that in Europe. Said comments were in no way an attempt to suggest that there is an acceptable or acceptable level of anti-Semitism or other types of bigotry. It was a retort to what I believed to be the false assertion that the Middle East has had as pronounced and legally codified a history of anti-Semitism as Europe . . .if not more so, and that these deep seeded and political hatred of Jews dates back aeons. This is a myth, and one that has worked out remarkably well advocates of the Israeli police state who would rather that people unquestioningly accept that Israel has taken the form it has because of some long standing social chasm between Palestinians and Jews.]
Additionally, you admit that until recently, settlers' confiscation of Palestinian land was cast a blind eye by the state responsible for and reasonably capable of reigning in such illegal acts of violence. The scenario you're describing is, essentially, one of defacto legality. And even when using the most generous terms, an honest person is forced to acknowledge that Israel has been at best slovenly in adhering to and upholding it's own legal mandates.
Make no mistake, the political line you're holding is in some very significant ways identical to that of white South Afrikans who were eager to distance themselves from some of the more dubious colonizers before them. As a sidenote, I'm willing to guess, neigh, wager that many key ANC players saw more than a tad similarity between their struggle in South Africa and that of Palestinians in occupied Palestine. Let's check the history books on this one.
In response to Cosmo's comment about me having not read the thread, I'd urge him to go back and reread that first post in which I acknowledge that I had not read the thread in its entirety. He should see that my comments we're largely addressing the problems I'd seen in the thread to the point that I'd read. And to bring it back to the point I'd made a little earlier in this post-- What's with the glazing over of the Israeli gov't routine reneging on agreements as though this is just an unimportant little subtext to the current political climate? "Oh, you know-- We were supposed to tear down that Berlin Wall three months ago, but . . . ya know."
I'll address the other gentleman's post about Right of Return shortly. Uno.
A Palestinian Israeli living within the pre-67 borders lives in an Apartheid system, that much is true. In the Occupied Territories, it's more like living under colonial administration, and we all know what Gandhi thought about that.
It is legal for an Israeli, or more precisely, a settler who does not recognize the state of Israel (pays no taxes, does no military service) to point an uzi at a Palestinian and appropriate his olive grove. The other way round is illegal.
But yes, there have been plenty of Jewish Israelis who have fought for Palestinian rights, just like in that film Biko.
Just writing things does not make them true. These three paragraphs is agitprop. South African blacks living under Apartheid could not have a legal party, like the ANC. They could not attend the the country's universities, were not treated the same under the courts, I could go on. As I mentioned earlier, Palestinians living in Israel cannot join the army and in a highly militarized state this precludes them from coalition governments and high office. But their rights and economic conditions are not the same as Apartheid blacks. Under the peace process years, Khalil Shikaki polled Israeli Arabs and asked them whether they would want to live under a Palestinian Authority run state and almost all of them answered no.
It is not "legal" for a settler to confiscate land. Until recently these kinds of violations were ignored by the state. But no longer. Finally, the ANC in south africa never launched a terror war against white south africa. There were acts of terror, but nothing like what we saw from the Palestinians during and after the peace process.
Sorry for the delays between posts.
"Just writing things does not make them true." A very accurate statement. Reread your post. In it, you acknowledge (a) Palestinians cannot reasonably be said to posses the same degree of social agency as white Israelis and further (b) this difference in social standing is legally codified. These points alone are sufficient to give credence to the Apartheid analogy I earlier made. No amount of "but it's not as bad because . . ." reasoning/rhetoric is going to invalidate what we've now acknowledged as fact-- Palestinians and white Israelis are not of the same legal standing. Obfuscating the issue a is tad like arguing the merits of states that considered Black people 8/10 as opposed to 3/5 human beings.
[Let me also anticipate a question regarding my statement comparing anti-Semitism in the Middle East with that in Europe. Said comments were in no way an attempt to suggest that there is an acceptable or acceptable level of anti-Semitism or other types of bigotry. It was a retort to what I believed to be the false assertion that the Middle East has had as pronounced and legally codified a history of anti-Semitism as Europe . . .if not more so, and that these deep seeded and political hatred of Jews dates back aeons. This is a myth, and one that has worked out remarkably well advocates of the Israeli police state who would rather that people unquestioningly accept that Israel has taken the form it has because of some long standing social chasm between Palestinians and Jews.]
Additionally, you admit that until recently, settlers' confiscation of Palestinian land was cast a blind eye by the state responsible for and reasonably capable of reigning in such illegal acts of violence. The scenario you're describing is, essentially, one of defacto legality. And even when using the most generous terms, an honest person is forced to acknowledge that Israel has been at best slovenly in adhering to and upholding it's own legal mandates.
Make no mistake, the political line you're holding is in some very significant ways identical to that of white South Afrikans who were eager to distance themselves from some of the more dubious colonizers before them. As a sidenote, I'm willing to guess, neigh, wager that many key ANC players saw more than a tad similarity between their struggle in South Africa and that of Palestinians in occupied Palestine. Let's check the history books on this one.
In response to Cosmo's comment about me having not read the thread, I'd urge him to go back and reread that first post in which I acknowledge that I had not read the thread in its entirety. He should see that my comments we're largely addressing the problems I'd seen in the thread to the point that I'd read. And to bring it back to the point I'd made a little earlier in this post-- What's with the glazing over of the Israeli gov't routine reneging on agreements as though this is just an unimportant little subtext to the current political climate? "Oh, you know-- We were supposed to tear down that Berlin Wall three months ago, but . . . ya know."
I'll address the other gentleman's post about Right of Return shortly. Uno.
-Are Double, Apostate
Worth pointing out, re the South African connection, that Israel was the chief supporter of apartheid South Africa, breaking the arms embargo, sharing their nuclear capability, the lot...
with this comment you've pretty much revealed the ignorance underlying your entire argument. Israel is about 70% mizrachi, Druze, Bedouin and Arab. do your homework dog.
Worth pointing out, re the South African connection, that Israel was the chief supporter of apartheid South Africa, breaking the arms embargo, sharing their nuclear capability, the lot...
and the Arab regimes and the Palestinians specifically were in bed with the Soviet Union, among the most murderous regimes and greatest human rights abusers in all of history. RSA was small fry in comparison. so, yeah...
A Palestinian Israeli living within the pre-67 borders lives in an Apartheid system, that much is true. In the Occupied Territories, it's more like living under colonial administration, and we all know what Gandhi thought about that.
It is legal for an Israeli, or more precisely, a settler who does not recognize the state of Israel (pays no taxes, does no military service) to point an uzi at a Palestinian and appropriate his olive grove. The other way round is illegal.
But yes, there have been plenty of Jewish Israelis who have fought for Palestinian rights, just like in that film Biko.
Just writing things does not make them true. These three paragraphs is agitprop. South African blacks living under Apartheid could not have a legal party, like the ANC. They could not attend the the country's universities, were not treated the same under the courts, I could go on. As I mentioned earlier, Palestinians living in Israel cannot join the army and in a highly militarized state this precludes them from coalition governments and high office. But their rights and economic conditions are not the same as Apartheid blacks. Under the peace process years, Khalil Shikaki polled Israeli Arabs and asked them whether they would want to live under a Palestinian Authority run state and almost all of them answered no.
It is not "legal" for a settler to confiscate land. Until recently these kinds of violations were ignored by the state. But no longer. Finally, the ANC in south africa never launched a terror war against white south africa. There were acts of terror, but nothing like what we saw from the Palestinians during and after the peace process.
not to mention that the settlers do recognize the state. you may remember the disengagement, when the settlers by and large followed the orders of the democratically elected government and left their homes. sounds like recognition of the state to me. and about not paying taxes or serving in the army, that's just nonsense. the settlers have among the highest rate of army participation of any segment of Israeli society. your description better fits the small minority of anti-Zionist haredim that live mostly in Jerusalem and represent a small percentage of Israeli society.
...the false assertion that the Middle East has had as pronounced and legally codified a history of anti-Semitism as Europe . . .if not more so, and that these deep seeded and political hatred of Jews dates back aeons. This is a myth...
we can quibble about the level of discrimination Jews faced under Arab and Muslim governments (e.g. OK they weren't massacred in the street all that often, but they weren'r allowed to own land or testify in court), but to deny that it existed is just ignorant.
"While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe."
"While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe."
which I acknowledged. but there was still discrimination at a level that neither you nor I would ever stand for.
do you see the irony in dude's argument?
the poster said it's wrong to distinguish between levels of discrimination (e.g. just because Arabs in Israel don't have it as bad as blacks in Apartheid RSA, doesn't make it right). to distinguish between the two levels of discrimination is bogus.
And then he goes on to do exactly that, by saying that Jews in Muslim countries never had it as bad as in Europe. Well, OK. But does that make it right that Jews were still discriminated against in these countries?
Worth pointing out, re the South African connection, that Israel was the chief supporter of apartheid South Africa, breaking the arms embargo, sharing their nuclear capability, the lot...
and the Arab regimes and the Palestinians specifically were in bed with the Soviet Union, among the most murderous regimes and greatest human rights abusers in all of history. RSA was small fry in comparison. so, yeah...
This is hilarious. You are quite correct: the Palestinians and Arabs supplied the Russians with arms and money and helped prop up their government in the face of worldwide condemnation. What would Russia have done without the Palestinians? Holding on by a thread and then... the Palestinians to the rescue!
"RSA was small fry in comparison". You're right. What matters is not murder, but how many thousands you murder. When somebody kills my family and all my friends, I'll try to remember he's small-fry compared to any low-level Nazi, Vietnam-era American military officer, or one of Pol Pot's goons.
Comments
Let's not forget that historically there is no sovereign Palestine prior to the creation of Israel. "Palestine" was a British holding and before WWI, a part of the Ottoman Empire--Palestinian nationalism as a movement begins in the 1930's. Therefore there would be no "giving back" because the Palestinians never actually possessed the land in the first place.
But don't get me wrong, I don't condone the actions of Israel in this current war (and really we have to start calling it that) or really any of their post-1967 military actions. But the "there can never be justice on stolen land" argument is such a dead end. You have to accept the situation being what it is so you can move on and constructively think of ways to solve the problem rather than look at either side as being either completely in the right or completely in the wrong.
I think it's been going pretty well, considering the touchy subject matter. Of course, there's always this next touchy...
I think you're referring to a post I made. At the time I was living in San Francisco, epicenter of the tepid protest movement against the Afghanistan action, and let me tell you from my vantage point it was nowhere near the strength, the bredth, or the focus of the protests we've seen against casualties in Iraq. And deservedly so IMO because Iraq is far, far worse - and far far less justifiable.
Co-sign.
For one thing, the topic of Israel, the Middle East, etc. has popped up on numerous occasions on Strut but never with the degree on depth and information being thrown in. Are there some overheated opinions and blinder-like bias? Yeah, sure but we could be talking about - say, free jazz - and you'd find silly debates there too. I actually think this has been a very illuminating conversation and I also think it - and of course, the world events - have been pushing people to learn more on their own. I can say, for my part, I've learned more about this issue - from ALL SIDES of perspective - in the last two weeks than my entire lifetime prior even though I consider myself a decent consumer of news.
Unfortunately, I'm still left pretty ambivalent about where to stand on a variety of issues. Especially around the historical issues concerning Israel's very creation and whether or not they can be rightfully termed a colonizing state or not, it's hard to cut through the opposing historical data. As I've said before though, perhaps realpolitik necessitates a permanent shelving of that issue ("leave it to the historians" said one of my friends even though he leans pro-Palestinian) in order to affect a contemporary solution.
A question on this level: what are the immigration controls set in Israel? I know the Jewish Right of Return says that any Jew has the right to move to Israel and become a citizen. How about Arabs?
Unfortunately, I'm still left pretty ambivalent about where to stand on a variety of issues. Especially around the historical issues concerning Israel's very creation and whether or not they can be rightfully termed a colonizing state or not, it's hard to cut through the opposing historical data. As I've said before though, perhaps realpolitik necessitates a permanent shelving of that issue (leave it to the historians said one of my friends even though he leans pro-Palestinian) in order to affect a contemporary solution.
A question on this level: what are the immigration controls set in Israel? I know the Jewish Right of Return says that any Jew has the right to move to Israel and become a citizen. How about Arabs?
I don't think Israel can be considered a colonial state because there is no Jewish motherland for the Jewish "settlers" of pre-1967 Israel. To refer to the entire entity in terms of a colonial experiment is to implicitly say the Jewish state is not legitimate. Now, there was a war in 1948 where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from the territory that is now for lack of a better term "lesser Israel." Palestinians call this al-Nachba, the left often uncritically accepts their version of events. But the original state of Israel--as established under the 1948 partition was even smaller and relegated to the lands where there was a Jewish majority. Even this was unacceptable to the Arab monarchies and Palestinian Mufti at the time that declared war when Ben Gurion declared independence. Israel won that war and the borders of pre-1967 were established. So were many Palestinian refugees. Many Palestinians also stayed. And while they may not join the army, and have historically been discriminated against by the government in Israel--Palestinian israelis nonetheless have more political and economic rights than almost everyone else living under Arab tyranny. And their treatment has improved over time. Around the same time after Israel was created, Jews in the Arab world were kicked out of their countries and forced to move to Israel.
Thanks for that breakdown but it still didn't address my central question: if one is NOT Jewish, what are the immigration rule governing migration into Israel?
Also, I can't remember if Rootless or someone else noted this but if the Arab minority in Israel ever becomes a majority (birth rate/immigration/etc.) how will that effect internal Israeli politics and power?
please leave.
(why is anyone responding to this guy?)
Perhaps you should leave, if you can't deal with viewpoints different than your own.
easy son. I have done my fair share of responding in here, and particularly to those that disagree with me and with whom I disagree. but dude is way out of line and by his own admission did not even read the thread before blowing in here with his half-baked schitt on the tenth page. I happen to agree that this is an interesting debate that has so far been conducted with respect. I respected your opinions, for instance, even if I think you're a tool. now go back and read dude's post and ask yourself if it warrants a response. then if you still want to stoop to the little dude's level, be my guest.
awesome, the name calling certainly makes you look rational and well-reasoned
Now that's a level I won't be stooping to.
I read dude's post in full and while I disagree with him, he didn't call anyone names (like you just did), he made a reasonable argument that is made by many people and while you may disagree with it to say he should leave or not be responded to is, to me, not in the spirit of good debate.
did you see pages 3-6?
I just think it's ironic that some were mentioning how respectful this conversation has been and then dude comes in:
1. without having even read the thread; and
2. asserting flippantly that Israel has no right to exist as his point of departure.
And he asserts this on the basis of some wholly-uninformed fantasy of Israel as "a resort" rather than as a very real, concrete expression of the national sovereignty of a people. Dude is lazy and has not taken the time to consider the opinions that have already been expressed, nor the basic facts of the debate.
Now the very right of Israel to exist may be an academic issue for you. But please understand that for some of us it isn't.
I'm not entirely sure on the details here. Jews obviously have the easiest time immigrating (like those with Irish ancestry do to Ireland, those with German ancestry to Germany, etc.). It is not uncommon for Arabs/Palestinians to receive ciitzenship within the context of family unification (the most common scenario being an Israeli Arab who marries a Palestinian from Gaza or the W. Bank).
Well, I had this admittedly emotional response in the other Right of Return thread:
But the basic logic of Paragraph 2 is, I think, sound. This would be the result if a right of return was actually implemented (rather than just recognized in principle).
As to how that would effect the internal Israeli politics? It's hard to imagine, given that this would represent the end of Israel as we recognize it today. There would be violence within Israel. And there would certainly be a hardening of positions among the Zionist political parties: as the Jews became outnumbered and threatened you would probably see the rise of more militaristic political parties.
But at the end of the day make no mistake: we are talking about the dissolution of the State of Israel as we know it.
Just a thought on the state of Arab-Jewish relations within Israel: While there have always been Arab political parties in Israel (and non-ethnically-affiliated parties such as the Communist Hadash party that nonetheless commanded widespread Arab support), it was not at all uncommon up through the 90's for large segments of the Arab public to vote for Zionist parties (Meretz and Labor mostly). These parties had a more peace-oriented platform and were seen (however rightly or wrongly) as more sensitive to the needs of the Arab sector than the more Right parties such as Likud.
I can remember traveling through the heavily Arab Wadi Ara area in the North of Israel and seeing Labor or Meretz flags and banners in the towns and villages. I traveled the same roads in March and saw Hezbollah flags. This is in Israel.
Does the Israeli government bear some responsbility for the alienation of the Arab sector? Absolutely. Successive Israeli governments pursued policies that, while not actively discriminating against the Arab citizens of Israel, largely ignored them. The Jews in power focussed on strengthening Israel as a Jewish State, since this was its aim.
That said, Israeli Arabs reaped benefits. They achieved what is among the highest standards of living of any Arab population in the Middle East (infant mortality rates lower even than those of African Americans). That they achieved such a standard of living as a minority group within a Middle Eastern state is nothing short of amazing.
Do the Israeli Arabs experience racism? Absolutely. Should they bow their heads and accept the racism they may experience in the private sector? No way. They should fight for full equality. But seeing them embrace terrorist groups that have the destruction of Israel as their ultimate goal is VERY disheartening (particularly in light of the fact that poll data reveals a CLEAR preference among Israeli Arabs to remain in Israel upon the eventual creation of a Palestinian state.
Anyway that's my biggest concern: Arab-Jewish relations within Israel. I hope they can step away from the brink and start building real national cohesion again.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept your assumptions. You hold that Israel was created by white euros taking over land to which they had no claim and, hence, Israel has no right to exist. You consider this method of taking possession roughly equivalent the European conquest of the Americas, at least in terms of moral repugnancy. It seems to follow that the Americas also have no right to exist. Does this mean that the Americas should be dismantled and returned to Native Americans? I'm not being flippant; I genuinely want to know if this the only way you believe justice, or at least your conception of it, can be implemented.
I'm also intrigued by the concept of "right of return" and what it might mean in a more general sense. Do I have a right of return to my grandparents' land in Poland and Romania? My family was there for two centuries before they were forced to leave. Do I have a right of return to Spain? My families' property and possessions were appropriated and they were expelled after at least four hundred years of living there. It???s said that relatives on my father???s side were originally English; do they have a right of return to England (from where they would have been expelled in 1290)? Do my cousins have a right of return to the Arab countries from which they were expelled in the forties? Do the Acadians have a right of return to Eastern Canada? Can the Moors reclaim their property and land taken from them by the Christians (or where the Christians merely exercising their right of return?) Do former slaves have a right of return to their historical homes?
These questions aren???t meant to imply any equivalency between these events and the founding of Israel, but merely to consider a potential right???s boundaries. In any event, history seems to suggest that the issue is largely academic.
Your comment about Israel being a "resort for white people" is astoundingly offensive.
Just to add on to the cipher, the problem with this dude's post is that he does not account for what Israel has done in the last twenty years since the first Intifadah. The Jewish state tried to negotiate a two state solution that would have redivided their capital and the holiest city in Judaism; when that failed, they were faced with a terror war being fought by adolescents with bomb vests; they built a wall and started to unilaterally deoccupy the territory. There was a time when Palestinians living in West Bank and Gaza were non-citizens treated as day laborers. By 1993, they were negotiating partners. I am not saying Israel should get a cookie, but the country changed. It tried to redress as best it could the sin of occupation. Apartheid south africa--which you say is the equivalent of Israel--is defined by the policy (and a far more brutal one at that) of occupation, noncitizenship etc... As we have pointed out earlier, Palestinians in pre-67 Israel are citizens, with political parties etc...
To just ignore all of this recent history and context is not only offensive it's ignorant.
It is legal for an Israeli, or more precisely, a settler who does not recognize the state of Israel (pays no taxes, does no military service) to point an uzi at a Palestinian and appropriate his olive grove. The other way round is illegal.
But yes, there have been plenty of Jewish Israelis who have fought for Palestinian rights, just like in that film Biko.
Just writing things does not make them true. These three paragraphs is agitprop. South African blacks living under Apartheid could not have a legal party, like the ANC. They could not attend the the country's universities, were not treated the same under the courts, I could go on. As I mentioned earlier, Palestinians living in Israel cannot join the army and in a highly militarized state this precludes them from coalition governments and high office. But their rights and economic conditions are not the same as Apartheid blacks. Under the peace process years, Khalil Shikaki polled Israeli Arabs and asked them whether they would want to live under a Palestinian Authority run state and almost all of them answered no.
It is not "legal" for a settler to confiscate land. Until recently these kinds of violations were ignored by the state. But no longer. Finally, the ANC in south africa never launched a terror war against white south africa. There were acts of terror, but nothing like what we saw from the Palestinians during and after the peace process.
For arguments sake, by what you are saying above then wouldn't this mean that the zionists coming to Israel from other countries after the formation of the Israeli state, that technically were pushed off their land in Israel centuries ago would also not have that right to return?
I don't think anyone has issue with a people from that land that lived on that land for centuries up until the creation of Israel (whether palestinian or jewish) have the right to keep their land. I think what it boils down to is that once the jewish state was created that it became the rights of foreigners to claim their stake in israel. I guess I have a hard time ok'ing the right of return for one group of people while millions of other sects and groups have been displaced throughout human history and virtually never been given that "right of return".
Sorry for the delays between posts.
"Just writing things does not make them true." A very accurate statement.
Reread your post. In it, you acknowledge (a) Palestinians cannot reasonably be said to posses the same degree of social agency as white Israelis and further (b) this difference in social standing is legally codified. These points alone are sufficient to give credence to the Apartheid analogy I earlier made. No amount of "but it's not as bad because . . ." reasoning/rhetoric is going to invalidate what we've now acknowledged as fact-- Palestinians and white Israelis are not of the same legal standing. Obfuscating the issue a is tad like arguing the merits of states that considered Black people 8/10 as opposed to 3/5 human beings.
[Let me also anticipate a question regarding my statement comparing anti-Semitism in the Middle East with that in Europe. Said comments were in no way an attempt to suggest that there is an acceptable or acceptable level of anti-Semitism or other types of bigotry. It was a retort to what I believed to be the false assertion that the Middle East has had as pronounced and legally codified a history of anti-Semitism as Europe . . .if not more so, and that these deep seeded and political hatred of Jews dates back aeons. This is a myth, and one that has worked out remarkably well advocates of the Israeli police state who would rather that people unquestioningly accept that Israel has taken the form it has because of some long standing social chasm between Palestinians and Jews.]
Additionally, you admit that until recently, settlers' confiscation of Palestinian land was cast a blind eye by the state responsible for and reasonably capable of reigning in such illegal acts of violence. The scenario you're describing is, essentially, one of defacto legality. And even when using the most generous terms, an honest person is forced to acknowledge that Israel has been at best slovenly in adhering to and upholding it's own legal mandates.
Make no mistake, the political line you're holding is in some very significant ways identical to that of white South Afrikans who were eager to distance themselves from some of the more dubious colonizers before them. As a sidenote, I'm willing to guess, neigh, wager that many key ANC players saw more than a tad similarity between their struggle in South Africa and that of Palestinians in occupied Palestine. Let's check the history books on this one.
In response to Cosmo's comment about me having not read the thread, I'd urge him to go back and reread that first post in which I acknowledge that I had not read the thread in its entirety. He should see that my comments we're largely addressing the problems I'd seen in the thread to the point that I'd read. And to bring it back to the point I'd made a little earlier in this post-- What's with the glazing over of the Israeli gov't routine reneging on agreements as though this is just an unimportant little subtext to the current political climate? "Oh, you know-- We were supposed to tear down that Berlin Wall three months ago, but . . . ya know."
I'll address the other gentleman's post about Right of Return shortly. Uno.
-Are Double, Apostate
Worth pointing out, re the South African connection, that Israel was the chief supporter of apartheid South Africa, breaking the arms embargo, sharing their nuclear capability, the lot...
with this comment you've pretty much revealed the ignorance underlying your entire argument. Israel is about 70% mizrachi, Druze, Bedouin and Arab. do your homework dog.
and the Arab regimes and the Palestinians specifically were in bed with the Soviet Union, among the most murderous regimes and greatest human rights abusers in all of history. RSA was small fry in comparison. so, yeah...
not to mention that the settlers do recognize the state. you may remember the disengagement, when the settlers by and large followed the orders of the democratically elected government and left their homes. sounds like recognition of the state to me. and about not paying taxes or serving in the army, that's just nonsense. the settlers have among the highest rate of army participation of any segment of Israeli society. your description better fits the small minority of anti-Zionist haredim that live mostly in Jerusalem and represent a small percentage of Israeli society.
You can't be serious.
we can quibble about the level of discrimination Jews faced under Arab and Muslim governments (e.g. OK they weren't massacred in the street all that often, but they weren'r allowed to own land or testify in court), but to deny that it existed is just ignorant.
"While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe."
which I acknowledged. but there was still discrimination at a level that neither you nor I would ever stand for.
do you see the irony in dude's argument?
the poster said it's wrong to distinguish between levels of discrimination (e.g. just because Arabs in Israel don't have it as bad as blacks in Apartheid RSA, doesn't make it right). to distinguish between the two levels of discrimination is bogus.
And then he goes on to do exactly that, by saying that Jews in Muslim countries never had it as bad as in Europe. Well, OK. But does that make it right that Jews were still discriminated against in these countries?
This is hilarious. You are quite correct: the Palestinians and Arabs supplied the Russians with arms and money and helped prop up their government in the face of worldwide condemnation. What would Russia have done without the Palestinians? Holding on by a thread and then... the Palestinians to the rescue!
"RSA was small fry in comparison". You're right. What matters is not murder, but how many thousands you murder. When somebody kills my family and all my friends, I'll try to remember he's small-fry compared to any low-level Nazi, Vietnam-era American military officer, or one of Pol Pot's goons.
Keep waiting.