I disagree. Hinduism has many extremist and violent elements, just like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Recall Hindu militants storming mosques in NW India? The train massacre where hundreds of Muslims were burned to death? The burning of brides that outlive their husbands? There have also been scores of deadly attacks on theaters, Christians and churches, nightclubs and government facilities. Tourist hotspots have been targeted as well.
Those practices, except possibly for the practice of suttee (I suspect that's not either, but don't know enough about it), are as truly Hindu as the behavior of the "Christians" you've described.
Sincere practioners of the hindu religion don't dare harm any living thing.
Um.... I'm sorry, but that is not correct. I think you have the Jains in mind.
Hinduism is not a monolithic unified belief system, but a wide variety of teachings which have evolved from the Upanishads and other Vedic and post-Vedic literatures. Some are theistic, others deist, and a few even atheistic. The Wiki site on Hinduism gives a decent overview. Also, keep in mind that the Mahabarata, one of the great epics of the Hindu tradition is the tale of conflict and war, and the Bhagavad Gita, a poem embedded withi the Mahabarata, is advice from Krishna to Arjuna, given in a war chariot, just before they go into battle.
That there are intolerant Hindu practitioners can be clearly seen from the treatment of Muslims in India by Hindus during and after the partition of India in 1948. Additionally, since that time, the Sikhs have suffered from extremist Hindu attacks upon their practitioners and holy sites in northern India. A Hindu is not necessarily non-violent.
Merely requoting the poster, who said they were confused.
Except that you misunderstood why vm was confused. I see that vm has already straightened you out on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
2. Arabs do *not* have full legal rights in Israel - nor is the state rushing to address that inequality.
Crossing signals here. I am talking about Israel excluding West Bank and Gaza, you are talking about Israel including them.
No, actually I'm not. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that Israel treats Gaza and WB Arabs properly. When I made my comment above, I was talking about Arabs living inside Israel.
Quote:
Long-term, there will be a split, and the Palestinians will be able to self-govern (as long as the attacks stop).
There will be no split, because the right wing in Israel wants "Judea and Samaria" too badly to give it up.
Quote:
Within Israel, it is true that Arabs have less rights, although they have far FAR more than Jews do in any Arab state.
Which is an irrelevant distinction. Israel claims to be a western-style democracy; the Arab states do not. Moreover, "Arab" is not some uniform group that shares guilt on a group basis. As I said before in an exchange to you:
What Morocco did in Morocco is not connected to what Israel did in Palestine. If a Catholic steals a house from a Protestant in Northern Ireland, that doesn't justify a Protestant stealing a house from a Catholic in South Africa. Each nation answers for its own actions. The Arabs aren't one big block of people that share some kind of collective financial responsiblity. No group bears any such responsibility as that.
The topic at the time was financial. The argument also holds true for human rights.
Quote:
But as I said, I don't think that is the long-term goal, at least of the moderates. The Orthodox, that may be a different story.
Right now the orthodox are all that matters, since their party is in power and foreign policy apparently revolves around whatever giving the orthodox whatever they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
No one denies that Jews have been attacked through the centuries. What mystifies everyone is how such a group of people could then turn around and commit the same types of actions against Palestinians. One would think that the Jews would have a *special* understanding of what that kind of injustice feels like. Apparently, that is not the case.
You're sterotyping. Among the biggest supporters of Palestinian statehood and easing restrictions are Israeli Jews. Just like any other group, they are NOT homogenous.
1. No, I am not. If you recall, the context of your previous comment -- the one to which I was responding above -- was you giving reasons why a Jewish *state* would come into existence, a place where no one would pass any anti-Jewish laws, etc. So in my paragraph above, I am talking about the *state* of Israel, and the actions that it takes in the name of the *state*.
2. For someone to object to collective treatment of a given group of people, you sure didn't hesitate in the preceding section above, where you compared treatment of Arabs vs treatment of Jews.
Quote:
Right now, unfortunately, the Israelis and Palestinians are locked into a "I can tolerate this, but how much can I get out of the end-game" situation. And with that attitude, you never *get* to the end-game.
I think I agree with you in broad terms, but I'm not sure since I can't decide if we agree on what the end game goals are for each of the two sides.
Quote:
I've often half-heartedly mused that nations are like people. Abused children grow up to be abusers. Perhaps it works the same way with countries..
Maybe this explains the Palestinian form of government under Arafat? I hope they clean it up...
It actually might explains how Israelis can treat Arabs so poorly, after Jews being themselves victims under other governments.
Quote:
And lest we get too far down the track of playing the persecution card, it needs to be rememberd that earlier in history the Jews were offered several other homelands, but turned them down. They preferred instead to keep pressing Britain to carve out a piece of Palestine. Which neatly contradicts your claim that persecution was the justification and the need for a homeland. Had that truly been the case, then the Jews would have jumped at the first homeland offered.
Now granted, that would still have created the dislocation caused by land theft. So someone would have been screwed by that action as well. But the point here was to expose the dishonesty in your historical revisionism.
Again, being desperate doesn't mean being stupid. The Jewish oblast in Russia would've been dominated by Russia. The land in Africa would've engendered the same hate, just from a slightly different group.
Sorry; doesn't work. Hate is not a disqualifying factor, since anywhere the Jews went they would have been dislocating *someone*. And angering a few hundred thousand in Uganda would have been better than angering 150 million Arabs and 600 million Muslims. Your argument based on avoiding hate backfires on you.
Besides, they would have been better off in Uganda, since the British would have been far more inclined to listen to them (as fellow Europeans) than to the native Ugandans. No issues of mixed British loyalties to Arabs vs Jews, no issues of oil to worry over, etc.
Quote:
The land in Israel had been settled since the late 1800s, it had settlers, farms, cities, ports to Europe, and it was controlled by the sypathetic British. Why not choose the best and most logical option?
1. The land in Uganda had also been settled since that time.
2. At the time when the Uganda option came to the table, the amount of settlement in Palestine by Jews was only a fraction of what it would become later, thus making that part of your argument much less effective;
3. Uganda was also controlled by the sympathetic British, no help for your argument there;
4. The most logical option would have been to pick a location that was not already occupied by people who had treaties with the British and who were highly invested emotionally in keeping the area. The bottom line here is that the Jews held out for Palestine for reasons of religion and national mythology -- not because they were in dire need of a safe haven. Had they needed such a safe harbor, they would have jumped at the earlier options presented to them. Ideology, not safety, was the driving factor.
Quote:
And if a "peaceful homeland" is the only criteria for a group seeking land, why don't the Paleestinians accept what they have and stop fighting?
1.Because the Palestinians have nothing. Hard to "accept what they have" when that amounts to zero.
2. You also misquote my position. I'm saying that if a group claims to be under as much persecution as the Jews alleged they were, then beggars can't be choosers. You take the first safe haven offered to you. The Jews failed to do so, thus putting the lie to their claims of dire endangerment.
3. And because the Palestinian situation is different: they are trying to GET BACK what land used to be theirs -- as opposed to European Jews, who never had any claim to the land in the first place.
Quote:
If they took all the money spent on their intifada and instead put it into business and education, they'd be rich!!!
And if Jews took all the money and effort they spent on zionism and just tried harder to not stand out, there wouldn't have been any pogroms. See how repugnant suggestions work?
Quote:
Oh, wait, a few lives and hardships are worth it for the land you really want and have historical ties to, right???? That saw cuts both ways.
1. Just because you "really want" something doesn't give you historical or legal rights to it. That was never part of my argument, although I understand why it's part of yours.
2. Polish, German, Russian, etc. Jews have no ties to the land, historical or otherwise. Given their long absence from the land -- if indeed they have any residual "bloodine" at all for the area -- such a claim is ridiculous. They claim a religious / mythological based connection, true. But not a real historical-based connection.
3. If we start allowing people who have emotional connections to a piece of land to move in, set up camp, and declare governments, then what's next? A bunch of Wiccans move in on Stonehenge and declare it to be a sovreign nation, because they have a religious/emotional attachment to it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
It's more than just that. It's a country with special privileges for Jews, denied to non-Jews, and where these privileges are enshrined in law, not merely custom.
Yeah, the right of citizenship for all Jews, plus some state support of Judaism. Long-term, once the two-state solution is implemented, that will probably be the only discrimination.
ACtually, it will be the opposite. If a two-state solution comes about, then Israel will feel liberated to become even MORE thoroughly apartheid in favor of Jews. The argument will be, "Well now the non-Jews even have their own state. We can become the truly Jewish state that we couldn't become in the past, because we had to respect non-Jewish rights. But that obstacle is gone now."
Quote:
Again, you're presenting only one side of the story. ARABS IN ISRAEL ARE TREATED BETTER THAN JEWS IN ARAB STATES. Every single one. Don't forget it.
1. I'm presenting the historical facts.
2. The treatment of Jews in Arab states is irrelevant to this discussion, for the reasons presented above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
You might want to educate yourself on this before posting about it. Israel is not accepting Jews from anywhere in the world. They currently have Ethiopian Jews in holding camps, and have limited their immigration to only a few hundred per year.[/b]
Yes, there are logistical restrictions.
These are not logistical restrictions. If they were merely logistical concerns, then Russian Jews wouldn't be accepted by the boatload. These are restrictions based upon race and based upon being "different" from most other Jews. Your statement is a farce.
Congressmen blast Israel for slow pace of Ethiopian aliya
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
Two US congressmen have written to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urging him to increase the rate of absorption of Ethiopians and criticizing the government for bringing only 300 each month.
Despite Sharon's assurances in the summer of 2003 that the immigration was being accelerated, the letter said, "We have been distressed, however, to learn that the pace of immigration from Ethiopia has averaged only 300 each month in spite of the dire poverty faced by the Ethiopian Jewish community."
[...]
n their letter, Nadler and Rangel mention their interest in discussing "how we might be of additional help in completing the ingathering of the Ethiopian Jewish community to our great ally, Israel."
Though the document doesn't specify the type of assistance possible, Nadler told The Jerusalem Post,/i>, "If Israel asks for additional funds for the absorption of refugees, we would certainly work to secure those funds, and there's a good chance Congress would provide them."
In fact, in a letter to Sharon and Poraz written in 2003, the two questioned why Israel was requesting less American aid for absorbing refugees – $50 million in 2004, down from $60m. the year before.
"It has come to our understanding that you are concerned about a lack of funds to handle the cost of implementing the [February 2003] decision. We are therefore puzzled to hear that Israel might be seeking fewer funds from Congress," they wrote.
Michael Janklowitz, a Jewish Agency spokesman, confirmed that US funding for resettling refugees fell from $60m. to its current level of $50m., but said that the allocation is the result of formula by the American government set on a per-capita basis. Since fewer people immigrated from the former Soviet Union, the amount of aid correspondingly dropped.
He added that American Jewish communities have offered to provide funding for additional absorption of Ethiopians, and that the congressmen's letters are merely the result of lobbying by the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry.
Janklowitz also noted that at the end of November Jewish Agency chairman Sallai Meridor called on the government for the first time to increase the rate of absorption of Falash Mura.
At that time, Meridor declared, "The economic arguments for the restrictions are baseless; quickening the pace of immigration would not raise costs... It is not right to hamper the pace of immigration from any country in the world; this is the only case of this happening in the history of the State of Israel. On the personal level, this is causing unnecessary suffering among those whose immigration has been approved." Meridor spoke ahead of a hearing in an ongoing High Court case seeking to force the government to implement its February 2003 decision.
It isn't logistical. It's racial.
Quote:
The overall point Jews just wanted a state for themselves.
Aw, gee. You make it sound so reasonable, such a small request. Well why didn't the Jews just say so in the first place? This has all been a big misunderstanding! They just want a state! Well, we hand out states all the time!
Well, we've got lots of land over here...
No, wait, I guess there isn't that much land after all.....
Oops, it's already occupied....
But if you're not picky, there's this land in Africa...oh, crap. You *are* picky...
Well, can you get along with the natives, respect their rights to land, water, and the like?....
Oh, you think they don't *have* any such rights? Where did you get such an absurd idea?....
Your GOD told you that?......
Yeah, this is gonna work real well.....
The rest of your post Is almost a word-for-word repetition of previous claims you made, which were already refuted here and here. You pat yourself on the back for what you see as "brave little Israel", ignoring that the actions that it took to create Israel and maintain it are neither brave, democratic, or just. And again: for someone who objects to painting an entire group broadly with a brush, you just did it again above, when you tried to bucketize all the Arabs into the same group.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
It's the same reason why the kurds want an autonomous homeland. They've been abused by the Turks, by the Iraqis, by the Iranians. Sure, Turkey is much better now, but there's no guarantee that will continue. With an independent Kurdistan composed mostly of Kurds, there would always be a free place for them to go.
(And I'll bet they'd rather have it IN KURDISTAN, where the KURDS LIVE, as opposed to some backwater piece of Africa or Siberia, too!)
Oh please. Do you really think that no one sees the difference that you are glossing over?
The difference is that the Kurds are CURRENTLY LIVING on that same land that they want to make into a Kurdistan. So if they succeed in making a Kurdistan, it's just a break-away piece of Turkey, Iran, Syria, etc. The Jews were not in that situation. Jews who had nothing more than a romantic attachment to Palestine just decided -- as a group -- that they wanted to make a state 2000 miles away in a country that most of them had NEVER EVEN SEEN BEFORE. So they came from Europe and wanted to kick out the existing residents in Palestine to make room for their new state.
The two situations aren't remotely identical. The fact that you tried to make them the same speaks to the lengths you will go, to knee-jerk a defense of zionism.
Quote:
Israel, for all it's faults, is a capitalist democracy.
If you're Jewish, it's a democracy. If you're not, then it's apartheid.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
It's the same reason why the kurds want an autonomous homeland. They've been abused by the Turks, by the Iraqis, by the Iranians. Sure, Turkey is much better now, but there's no guarantee that will continue. With an independent Kurdistan composed mostly of Kurds, there would always be a free place for them to go.
(And I'll bet they'd rather have it IN KURDISTAN, where the KURDS LIVE, as opposed to some backwater piece of Africa or Siberia, too!)
Oh please. Do you really think that no one sees the difference that you are glossing over?
The difference is that the Kurds are CURRENTLY LIVING on that same land that they want to make into a Kurdistan. So if they succeed in making a Kurdistan, it's just a break-away piece of Turkey, Iran, Syria, etc. The Jews were not in that situation. Jews who had nothing more than a romantic attachment to Palestine just decided -- as a group -- that they wanted to make a state 2000 miles away in a country that most of them had NEVER EVEN SEEN BEFORE. So they came from Europe and wanted to kick out the existing residents in Palestine to make room for their new state.
The two situations aren't remotely identical. The fact that you tried to make them the same speaks to the lengths you will go, to knee-jerk a defense of zionism.
There were maybe 15,000 Jews there before the Zionist movement started up in 1878. So they went there and at the start, started BUYING the land with the goal of making it a country of their own.
By the end of WWI, there were an awful lot of long-term residents and born-and-raised Jews in the land, a total population of 80,000 to 100,000 Jews. By 1928, there were over 200,000. So by 1948, you had nearly 200,000 residents who had lived there 20 years, plus children. That's a pretty good claim on land you had bought for cash. And I notice the sellers didn't throw the cash back.
Note the Arabs were pretty fine with the immigration for a long time. Their population bumped from a quarter of a million in the 1880s to half a million by the end of WWI. That's a lot of in migration of people looking for work. The first riots against the Jews didn't happen until 1920!! So for 40 years, the Arabs sold land to the Jews, took their money, worked for them, lived side-by-side. They never called it theft, and they didn't go to court or arrest the so-called "thieves". There were 100,000 more-or-less peaceful Jewish citizens living in the land at the end of WWI, on land they owned. Sure, it was new land to many, but they owned it outright, against the claims of others.
So what if the land was still somewhat new, who cares? Beyond the historical claim, you have the contracts of the people who bought the land peacably!
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauron
Quote:
Israel, for all it's faults, is a capitalist democracy.
If you're Jewish, it's a democracy. If you're not, then it's apartheid.
[/quote]
Here's your challenges:
(1) prove that Arab Israelis living in Israel (not the occupied territories) are treated worse than blacks under apartheid. You can't.
(2) prove that Arab Israelis living in Israel (not the occupied territories) are treated worse than Jews in ANY muslim country. You can't.
Israel exists, and that's that. So does Palestine. Yes, there are disputed claims, but there are claims on both sides. Any given patch of land is owned by Jews, was owned by Arabs before that, was owned by Jews even earlier, and Arabs even earlier, and homo afarensis before that. EVERYBODY has some historical claim. So arguing that is pointless. The Jews did not come in as bloodthirsty marauding huns, slaughtering the population and sowing the fields with salt. They came with cash and bought land. Eventually, the situation devolved into atrocities on both sides, but you cannot deny the inception.
Anyway, given that we're there, come up with a constructive solution toward peace. Wiping Israel, or Palestine for that matter, off the map is not a solution. Quit wasting time slamming a group just because you don't like them, and instead come up with something that moves toward PEACE.
Israel exists, and that's that. So does Palestine.
Indeed.
I'm rather curious as to why it is that those who tend to support Palestinian claims against Israel are smeared with the "anti-Semite" label, yet those who support Israeli claims against the Palestinians are not (instead, they are smeared with the "Zionist" label). Both peoples are Semites, the Palestinians probably more so than the Jews.
I also believe that under the Israeli constitution, all Israelis, whether of Jewish or Arab heritage, are guaranteed full and equal civil liberties, rights and responsibilities. As far as I know, only a small proportion of those of Arab heritage, almost all Druse, have accepted Israeli citizenship. Instead, most of the Palestinians refused the offer of citizenship. Thus, after the 1948 war, they were viewed (with reason, I'd say) as hostile foreign nationals.
__________________
Last edited by godfry n. glad; 07-27-2005 at 10:03 PM.
I'm rather curious as to why it is that those who tend to support Palestinian claims against Israel are smeared with the "anti-Semite" label, yet those who support Israeli claims against the Palestinians are not (instead, they are smeared with the "Zionist" label). Both peoples are Semites, the Palestinians probably more so than the Jews.
That's a good point, and an excellent illustration of how the very term "anti-semitic" itself comes prepackaged with all kinds of unwarranted assumptions. Do you know how it came to be coined as a term to describe people who hate/dislike/mistrust Jews?
The difference is that the Kurds are CURRENTLY LIVING on that same land that they want to make into a Kurdistan. So if they succeed in making a Kurdistan, it's just a break-away piece of Turkey, Iran, Syria, etc. The Jews were not in that situation. Jews who had nothing more than a romantic attachment to Palestine just decided -- as a group -- that they wanted to make a state 2000 miles away in a country that most of them had NEVER EVEN SEEN BEFORE. So they came from Europe and wanted to kick out the existing residents in Palestine to make room for their new state.
The two situations aren't remotely identical. The fact that you tried to make them the same speaks to the lengths you will go, to knee-jerk a defense of zionism.
There were maybe 15,000 Jews there before the Zionist movement started up in 1878. So they went there and at the start, started BUYING the land with the goal of making it a country of their own.
1. Interesting claim about 15K Jews. Source, please.
2. The fact that some piddling handful of Jews might have already lived there does not prove that the Jews from Europe had any claims on the area. We're still talking about the VAST majority of them being immigrants, and the VAST majority of them having no historical or legal ties to the area. Groups do not "share" entitlements merely because they have a common religion - Stonehenge again.
3. We've already been through this "bought the land" fantasy. *SOME* of the land was bought. But a great deal more was simply seized, sometimes outright and sometimes with the complicity of the "sympathetic British" -- as you so interestingly put it.
4. And that land which was bought? Factor out land which was sold by "sympathetic British" and you've got damn little freewill transactions left.
Quote:
By the end of WWI, there were an awful lot of long-term residents and born-and-raised Jews in the land, a total population of 80,000 to 100,000 Jews. By 1928, there were over 200,000. So by 1948, you had nearly 200,000 residents who had lived there 20 years, plus children.
1. So? By that argument, Pakistanis deserve to set up their own country in London, because Pakistanis have immigrated there for decades, had kids, raised families, etc.
2. 200,000 residents is a small fraction compared to the number of Arabs living there. Yet the Jews got over half the land, and they got the best parts of the land. Hardly a balanced scenario.
3. Finally, I note that your argument is essentially "Well, we only had a few people there to start with. But over time more came. So we had the right to create a country." Which is basically re-stating what I've always said: the Jews had no historical or legal basis for the land. So they set about creating facts on the ground. They figured that if they just procrastinated and talked the language of peace long enough, they could bide their time until historical/legal rights would come to them. Which, of course, is the same strategy that they're following with regards to the West Bank. They're currently outnumbered 95% to 5%. But they're actively working to change that now, using the same tactic that they used to create Israel in the first place: steal the land and hold onto it, until nobody remembers or cares that it was stolen anymore. That's why we have settlements like Ma'aleh Adumin: they're toe-holds into "Judea and Samaria" that the Israelis hope will allow them to slowly annex the land.
Quote:
That's a pretty good claim on land you had bought for cash. And I notice the sellers didn't throw the cash back.
You "notice"? Ah. So you claim to have studied the topic. Good; so have I. So you won't mind me asking:
What proof do you have that the sellers (a) had any choice in those few transactions which were actually purchases; and (b) didn't try to reverse the transaction, once they realized they had been snookered? Not that it would have done much good; the "sympathetic British" were only interested in administration, not settling disputes.
Quote:
Note the Arabs were pretty fine with the immigration for a long time.
Actually, they were not "OK" with it. They were opposed to it pretty much from the start. Jewish immigration became a major sticking point in negotiations with Sharif Husayn of Mecca. Thus the Husayn-McMahon Correspondence (go and look it up; you need to).
Quote:
Their population bumped from a quarter of a million in the 1880s to half a million by the end of WWI.
These figures are also incorrect - and badly so. We had a detailed discussion at IIDB on the bogus population figures usually cited by pro-zionist sources. One fragment here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...32#post1627632
But in the mid to late 1800s, the population was much higher than a mere 200,000. Here's the table of Palestinian population. Figures in thousands:
In fact the whole thread there is filled with good data that you are ignorant of.
Quote:
if the land was still somewhat new, who cares? Beyond the historical claim, you have the contracts of the people who bought the land peacably!
No, all we have is your romantic mythology. It didn't happen that way.
Quote:
Israel, for all it's faults, is a capitalist democracy.
If you're Jewish, it's a democracy. If you're not, then it's apartheid.
Here's your challenges:
I accept no challenges from someone who has failed to support any of his arguments, and repeats assertions that have been disproven.
If you want to issue challenges to me, then you need to go back to your claims in this thread and your other thread and deal with those claims first. Once you've dealt with them effectively, then I'll accept challenges.
Quote:
Anyway, given that we're there, come up with a constructive solution toward peace.
I only just noticed this thread today (well, it was pointed out to me ). That post by Galiel you pointed to was awesome Liv. I agree with him on all points. And the kind of depressing answers that Loren Pechtel gives after that post I am VERY familiar with...
I have been called an anti-semite and have seen people call others that in discussions about Israel and Palestine so many times the whole word has become totall meaningless to me. It is a weapon of mass distraction, a way to lead the discussion to another track and avoid having to argue the point.
Although I have noticed that these days the slur anti-semite is used less often and is being replaced by terrorist-supporter. I have seen people actually defending Israeli attacks on Lebanese minibuses using the argument that Hezbollah uses them to transport weapons sometimes. Then when I pointed out that by that logic you can defend Hamas attacks on Israeli buses because there are soldiers in them, they twisted that sentence to mean that I was defending terrorism. For the record: I think Hamas (or anybody) blowing up Israeli (or any) buses is disgusting. But my whole point in that discussion was: blowing up minibuses or ambulances with bombs delivered by planes is just as bad. Call it terrorism, call it war crimes, it is not limited to one side in the conflict(s).
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paranoid
Israel exists, and that's that. So does Palestine.
Indeed.
Well, no. Palestine does not exist, it is occupied by Israel. Even Gaza still is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
I also believe that under the Israeli constitution, all Israelis, whether of Jewish or Arab heritage, are guaranteed full and equal civil liberties, rights and responsibilities. As far as I know, only a small proportion of those of Arab heritage, almost all Druse, have accepted Israeli citizenship. Instead, most of the Palestinians refused the offer of citizenship. Thus, after the 1948 war, they were viewed (with reason, I'd say) as hostile foreign nationals.
Israel does not HAVE a constitution AFAIK.
Israeli Arabs do not have full and equal civil liberties, rights and responsibilities:
Quote:
Adalah's report to the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, issued August/September 2001 and entitled Institutionalized Discrimination Against Palestinian Citizens of Israel, identifies more than 20 laws that discriminate against the Palestinian minority in Israel. The report shows that the Jewish character of the state is evident in numerous Israeli laws. The most important immigration laws, The Law of Return (1950) and The Citizenship Law (1952), allow Jews to freely immigrate to Israel and gain citizenship, but excludes Arabs who were forced to flee their homes in 1947 and 1967. Israeli law also confers special quasi-governmental standing on the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund and other Zionist bodies, which by their own charters cater only to Jews. Various other laws such as The Chief Rabbinate of Israel Law (1980), The Flag and Emblem Law (1949), and The State Education Law (1953) and its 2000 amendment give recognition to Jewish educational, religious, and cultural practices and institutions, and define their aims and objectives strictly in Jewish terms.
You can find more tiny little things that make clear that Jews are a little more equal in Israel than Arabs. What is more there are all kinds of bonuses and perks that are only available to people who have served in the military and only Druze and bedouins serve, the majority of Israeli Arabs (Muslims and Christians) do not (and are not even allowed).
The point that Galiel made that I agree with especially is this: we have leverage over the Israelis and should use this leverage to force them, the stronger party in the conflict, to take the first step. Not just for the Palestinians, not just because the conflict affects relations with all the Arab nations and even all the Muslim nations, but also for Israel's sake. They have now tied themselves totally to the American neo-con adventure, as American power in the Middle East goes down (and it will...) they run the risk of being more isolated than ever. They are creating their own nightmare scenario I am very afraid...
I only just noticed this thread today (well, it was pointed out to me ). That post by Galiel you pointed to was awesome Liv. I agree with him on all points. And the kind of depressing answers that Loren Pechtel gives after that posts I am VERY familiar with...
Whoa! I was totally going to link to that post of galiel's on one of your Israel threads, but then the mafia distracted me. I'm glad you came across it on your own.
I only just noticed this thread today (well, it was pointed out to me ). That post by Galiel you pointed to was awesome Liv. I agree with him on all points. And the kind of depressing answers that Loren Pechtel gives after that posts I am VERY familiar with...
Whoa! I was totally going to link to that post of galiel's on one of your Israel threads, but then the mafia distracted me. I'm glad you came across it on your own.
Ok, it may seem I have a one-track mind sometimes, but I have been to Israel/Palestine when things were already VERY bad, I have seen the Israelis collect pieces of people blown up and have smelt burning flesh of Palestinians, I know what happens on the ground when they drop their bombs. It is not pretty and I want it to stop. All of it. And it pisses me off that we (Europe and the US) are still supporting the strong against the weak. There is no good or bad here, just like there wasn't really in Bosnia. But there is strong and weak, just like in Bosnia.
Btw: compared to most, if not all, the places I've ever been to this is a haven of sanity and well-informed opinion
I understand, Watser. I think the strong/weak binary fails on an individual level -- are the israeli civilians killed by a suicide bomber strong? -- but I can definitely see where you're coming from on a governmental level. As galiel says, atrocities and injustices are everywhere in war. Israel is the one with the military and political power to wage peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser?
Btw: compared to most, if not all, the places I've ever been to this is a haven of sanity and well-informed opinion
Why thank you! We need to work on being more open to discussants from a variety of viewpoints on the political spectrum, I think, but all in all, I think we do pretty damn well.
Re: Anti-semitism and criticism of Israel
). That post by Galiel you pointed to was awesome Liv. I agree with him on all points. And the kind of depressing answers that Loren Pechtel gives after that post I am VERY familiar with...
Linear Mode
