Anywhere but Israel, Please...

Reality....

Been out for a while and was amazed at the depth of discussion on this thread. It took a while to read all the posts. I do admire the posters depth of knowledge, their writing and debate ability regardless of their viewpoints. I never imagined an anti-Semitic and uniformed post by Daryush would lead to such an in-depth debate over the state of Israel.

At the risk of exposing my lack of detailed historical knowledge of the subject (i.e. State of Israel), I have mustered enough courage to voice my opinion which is entirely based on common sense and acceptance of “reality”. There will never be an end to the debate whether Israel is an apartheid state. People on either side will argue until the hell freezes over.

Call me a Zionist, fascist, terrorist, extremist, Jihadist, Islamist,…..or whateverist! but in my humble opinion, there will be no resolution to this conflict without the acceptance of the following “realities”:

1-State of Israel is here to stay. Whether you love Jews or hate them, you have to accept this.
2 -State of Israel has the right to defend herself and the safety and lives of her citizens at any price.
3 -Israel’s constitution is based on democratic principles and its government is democratically elected. There is no such a thing as “ideal” democracy in the “real” world.
4 –A peaceful two-state solution is a lot closer to reality than a single-state solution. Granted, a single state solution is the ideal answer.
5 –A “blanket” right-of-return will never happen (not that it should ever happen). It’s like granting Mexicans the “blanket” right-of-return to Texas.
6 –Destruction of state of Israel is equivalent to destruction of planet earth.

Rosie, I have tremendous amount of respect for your love of humanity, and the depth of your knowledge. I find you extremely talented and very artful in expressing your thoughts and feelings. But, you are an idealist to think that single-state is the only solution. If land of Israel is home of the current generation Palestinians (according to you), then it is also my home and home of every Jew from 2000+ years ago.

Again, in my opinion, intelligent but “idealist” people like Rosie are as much of a hurdle to peace as the doctrine of hate planted in the brain of every Palestinian born.

May god save us from the fruits of idealism…?

On Credibility, Sources, Conspiracy freaks, Reincarnations

Erdos, I provided the link because that page contained many references you had asked for. It is of course easy to denounce all the evidence contrary to your bias as zionist lies. People do it all the time. It is a global industry for losers, goes back some time too, before Israel was formed, way before that. So I ask you again, what precisely to do want, because there are abundant evidence for each point of contention around. That's a weird feature of reality, you see. It leaves its evidence all over the place, in many independent unrelated sources of history. Not very convenient for some, you see. That's why all enemies of Israel are totalitarian states with censorship, while all the policy of all free states and all respectable universities and sources of knowledge and reference is in support of Israel. That's also why enemies of Israel have to go to such lengths of freaky global conspiracy theories to justify their nonsense.
Anyway I have explained myself as clearly as I could for all to read and decide, Q and his possible reincarnations included.

Hamvatan, I'm glad you liked them.

Zion

Thanks for the great and accurate info!

You are not the first to make the Nazi analogy

Some American politicians have made the same arguments about Israeli regime. They are systematically silenced.

Here is one of them:

//youtube.com/watch?v=jz0NHn1WI3g

Israel is starving and killing Palestinians and US is enabling it. That's not a small crime.

forgive me Zion,

but a page out of a pro zionist talking points is not evidence. i did read it, you already copied most of it yourself in this page but did not cite them before, not that i think its terribly credible. for example that website says new historians do not provide analysis of other countries citizenship. well, in htis case that was provided by Q, which i thought was good and i hadn't heard it before. but you did not asswre, you also did not answer many other things. i dont want to get into it, i'm sure Q can defent him or herself. i usually read these arguments here ane elsewhere and consider myself neutral on the issue, but i can't help notice more and more people agreeing on israeli crimes. the fact that israel itself is divided means there is more to it than you give credit for. just an observation. take care and thank you for the website.

Koroush, Senor Sweiter must have been a marrano...

What would Kubler-Ross have had to say about his loss?  Koroush, I'm so sorry JJ unfeatured his blog, "Heading Home Again." I wonder why he did it? Your statement was beautiful and it deserved more exposure.   And my poor reply...I worked so hard on it. It is deceptively simple.It took so long to draft...JJ works in mysterious ways, does he not?  The blog is still there but it's buried among the "unfeatureds".  Koroush is so complex. Please allow me to describe him in his own words from that blog:

?I have said this before, I am you, I am your fears, your desires, your hatred, your history, your friend, your nemesus, your neighbor - well, you get the picture!"

He misspelled "nemesis" but that's OKAY. This was in response to suggestions that he receive psychiatric treatment. However, I believe Koroush to be an avatar of the Simorgh, Holy Bird, whom the Yarsanis of Iranian Kurdistan (Ardalan) worshipped as a chicken. It has a relationship to Ohrmazd and the rising of the Sun, it's VERY old..and you see how I conflate Islamic and Mazdaist and other symbology..it's..a habit of mine...Sorry.

You need to register, Koroush, the logo just doesn't suit you. But this is not the place for our (bantam) banter.  This blog is humorless. Maybe that's the whole problem.  But what do I know?  This blind man says the elephant is a snake, and that blind man says the elephant is a tree...but what if the elephant is actually a joke? What then? Would we laugh? Could we?

Who knows?

Best regards,

Rosary

I count my blessings...

Not at all

Erdos, you are wrong, I had already answered his "arguments". I have also provided references before. I can post it here again:
//www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm
You'll find many references there to follow up. If you want more, I can give you more. here is an abundance if evidence for historical FACTS. What precisely do you want?

Rosie . . .

On this day in 1570, Spanish viceroy Alva banishes Zutphen City's only physician, Joost Sweiter, because he is a Jew.

Look at these Israelis dressed as Arab muslims . . .

It is amazing what Israelis are willing to do to bring disrepute to arabs/muslims.

In the following video, they have hired Jewish actors to play arab muslims in an attempt to ridicule arab muslims.

We all know that these videos are staged and none are true! Arab muslims are very advanced in thought and technology.

Baba ina dasteh katolekarou ke bastan . . .

//www.memritv.org/clip/en/1642.htm

I must admit this beats my ZANFAX.com idea, howeveer, what I were to incorporate their device with mine.

At a time where even Belgium is coming apart at its seems, because of ethnic separatism we really a machine like the one featured in the video to bring the Palestinians and Israelis together.

Vay Kossein!

On this day in 838 A.D. Babak, Persian social/religious reformer, was killed!

Have a Great Friday! I am having fish today, how about you?

this person is hysterical

zion is hysterical. why you attack Q's motivation and psychology not his words? you make no sense on citizenship and you have no evidence of your own. i would not wast time with you.

I think he is right, all you zionists want to do is kill debate!

Q psychology

Q, you keep referencing UN as if the UN is the measure of all things. I certainly don't accept that, but following your consistency analysis, if the UN is such a measure to decide right from wrong, well, I wonder, the same UN voted for the establishment of Israel as a "Jewish State", the thing you find discriminatory. How come this inconsistency?

Q, I understand your singling out of Israel like this. I do. I really do. It has nothing to do with how palestinians are ill treated really. At the bottom of it, is what you perceive as ultimate hypocrisy. Is the fact that in your understanding Israel should be condemned using the standards of modern free world, but she is not. All those democratic nations, figures and promoters who (claim to) champion freedom and all that, all of a sudden fail to admonish Israel. If they did, your problem would be solved, as it is solved for all the real perpetrators like Russia, Arabia, Somalia, China, ... you name it. After this point, you seem to care very little. (For instance, you even defend and magnify the minuscule "good" thing you find in a state like the Islamic Republic of Iran.) Not only that, but these Israelis, Zionists, Neocons, what ever, and all these other hypocrite supposedly democratic states of the world, (supposedly) praise Israel for its "struggles for freedom and peace". I know this is what burns. For you, for Daryush, the curious entity, and even Rosies role model Edward Said. The problem is you never even contemplate on the possibility that what you perceive of Israel is wrong, that the attitude of whose who speak most of freedom towards Israel is actually not inconsistent and thus hypocritical. What Israel supposedly "does" and "is", is a "fact" for you beyond doubt, just as a stationary earth was a fact beyond doubt for many during many ages.

Thanks Hamvatan

FOr joining the discussion and presenting your arguments with such patience. Deeply appreciated.

Q analogies Q consistency

"You can't hold an entire race responsible for "terrorism""
Jews, Hipanics, Arabs and Palestinians do not constitute a race.

"I asked which facts you found "wrong." You weaseled out of it"
No I didn't. I said very clearly which facts I meant:
"The "facts" you mentioned [a]bout Israel['s] british and European and US backing in the initial wars against the Arabs (and the British!) is nonsense. "
Can't you read English?

"This was in spite of the fact that Israelis had already attacked and shot down British Planes in January and Britain chose not to retaliate. Can you explain why?"

Firstly, how come this one has no sources? What were the number of planes? Why should I know what goes on in the heads of British Commanders? How is that a proof that the British fought along side Israel TO destroy Egyptian Air Force? .... ?

This is my favorite:
"Second, almost all Hispanics -who are Catholic- themselves also do not get the special immigration privileges to Israel but Jewish immigrants do. Hispanics are not responsible for terrorism, are they?"

Now this is a Jewel in power of analogy. You see, I had thought that the analogy was between Israel and the US, and palestinians and the Hispanic. I didn't realize that one can jump all of a sudden and drag the poor Hispanics from the midst of analogy and into Israel all of a sudden.
Some style, Q, some style!

Q Facts, Q Fictions

Now I come to your facts Q:

"Israel had superior troops"
Yes. Where did I say otherwise? Israel won the war because it had more dedicated, capable soldiers, civilians and policy makers in all aspects. What is this supposed to imply? Israel obtained that superior power through dedication and self-relying smart behavior. How is that related to colonialism?

"British helped the Israelis by helping destroy Egyptian Airforce"
Nonsense.

"the main Arab losses were the result of RAF action in response to Egyptian raids on the British air base at Ramat David near Haifa on 22 May during which 5 Egyptian Spitfires were shot down. It was also during this time that the balance of air power began to swing in favor of the Israeli Air Force following the purchase of 25 Avia S-199s from Czechoslovakia, the first of which arrived in Israel on 20 May."
Is this supposed to imply the former?! Egyptians raided an English base and the british responded by shooting down 5 Egyptian planes. So? How is this supposed to imply that the British sided with Israel (based on policy) and destroyed (THE) "Egyptian Air Force"?!

Israel bought from Czechoslovakia because USA, Britain, France and all those "colonial" forces would not sell her the weapons she needed. You rejoice in arguing AGAINST yourself, Q?

Fiction:

"Haifa University Historian Ilan Pappe"
The Haifa University Historian Ilan Pappe is an ideological freak with no objective credibility. There are many such freaks in Israel and the rest of the free world. They have a tendency to creep into certain segments of the academia and produce crap at=round themselves.

The spurns that patient merit...

"Bullshit. Just being Jewish is not equivilant to being "born in America". America is already a nationality. Being "Jewish" is not a nationality, being "Israeli" is a nationality."
This discussion has nothing to do with what designates a nationality or not. But just to throw some light over your confusions, I explain the need to differentiate "Israeli" from "Jew".
First, Israel is a Jewish state, so Judaism is the cultural basis of what Israel is and stands for. That is what Israel is there for. But Judaism is somewhat a vague term, cultural basis is not as well defined in the international relationships concerning states and nationhood. Judaism also entails religious laws and aspects that although serve a positive part in forming that cultural identity can't be applied to the laws of a modern state.
Second, many Jews might decide not t make Aliyah to Israel.
Third, Arabs who live and are born are also recognized as citizens.
(All of these incidentally point towards Israel being a liberal modern state based on ideals of human rights.)

"Yes, if you were born to Israeli parents, you should get automatic citizenship. If your parents do not have citizenship, and you get preferential treatment versus someone else in the same situation, that's discrimination."
Why is the first situation, being born to an Israeli parent, not an instance of discrimination? It is discriminatory against those whose parents are not Israeli.
Why are you categorizing "discriminations" based on acceptable and non-acceptable ones? Why don't you stay true to the limiting results of your kind of "logic"?
" it's like being a non-American receiving American citizenship. "
And what is wrong with that? If America decided one day to grant mass citizenship to a group of say marsh arabs, or sumalian africans who face extinction and genocide and need protection, why should that constitute a "racist crime"?

OK, I try to explain this one more time. To be a citizen of a certain country is NOT a universal human right. It is a privilege that any country can give to any person. Therefore it has absolutely nothing to do with undermining human rights of any one in any situation. The citizens of a country can have certain rights AS citizens of that country. For instance an American or a Frenchman can have the right of protection by her government anywhere in the world, can have the right of sanctuary in the embassy of her country, while a non American or a non-French man does not have this particular right vis-a-vis the respective country. None of these constitute UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS. I wonder why this is so difficult to get through!
Whom a country grants citizenship to and whom it doesn't, has nothing to do with whether that country is discriminatory or racist or not. It is the rights that the citizens of the country, those who are already citizens of that country, have vis-a-vis each other that determines this. All Israeli citizens are equal before the law, all have, by law, the same rights and all positions of power is open to all citizens, as I stated before. Unlike Apartheid South Africa, Saudi Arabia or Islamic Republic of Iran.

Q, although me and Hamvatan have been patiently explaining this rather clear, though perhaps a bit subtle, reality to you in different words, you simply ignore what is being said, state the same premise that was just criticized and refuted, and then conclude the same things all over again!

Ey Hamvatan

Dear Q,

Thank you for your response. Have fun wherever you are going in the next few days.
In response to your points please see below:

1) As to my reference to “colonialist enterprise” - I did not do it to admit that Israel is a Colonial Enterprise. Rather, it was done because some people on this thread refer to it as so- that is why I put in in quotes. To me, and to the overwhelming majority of the Jews in the world, Israel is a necessity. Now, Historically, maybe the British and the rest of the gang where supporting the idea of Israel for their colonialist expansionist policies; however, regardless of this fact, Israel, after the events of WWII was a necessity. Yes, the local Palestinian population paid a price- but the Israelis are not the only ones to blame in this. You want to talk colonialisim, look at the map of Saudi arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Oman, UAE, Kuwait....All colonial creations- look at all the straight lines.
2)with respect to the following statement by you in response to my issue on the safety of Jews throughout history in Islamic and none-Islamic nations:
“First, this is far from true. Most European countries are just as safe, if not safer for Jews. There are neonazis inside Israel but not in some other countries where Jews reside (for example Iran), to say nothing of safety concerns as a result of the Palestinian and Lebanese conflicts. The United States, which is home to almost as many Jews than Israel, is actually quite safe and Jews have flourished here."
I was talking about the Jewish experience in history – not the present day experience. I can only suggest that you go and read some history of European Jewry. Europe was not at all a safe place for the Jews throughout Roman rule and Christian rule; there were multiple pogroms, murders and abuses of the Jews all over Europe. Some great examples are the Spanish inquisition (were I personally trace my ancestry from), pogroms in Poland, progroms in Russia, the black death pogroms the 2 or 3 times the English (among many other nations) who kicked their Jews out and let them return and the story goes on....... . I suggest you read the following to get a general understanding of what I'm talking about: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
Again, please look at the issue historically. Sure, Europe, which could not even protect its own Muslims and needed American assistance in Bosnia 10 years ago, is safe today for Jews. But Israel was created because of a historical problem. Jews who did not consider themselves Herzelian zionists or zionist at all, realized that they could no longer count on onyone but themselves for their safety.

Also as to Islamic nations- In Iran, Jews had to pay special protection taxes during certain periods. Also, there were forced conversions of Mashadi Jews. In Isphahan, jews lived in a getto (go read the adventures of the Sherly brothers and Shah Abbas who hung a few jews in that big square in Isphahan during his days.....). There was the famous passover blood liable in Syria and so on.. Although, over all, jews lived under much better conditions in the Islamic world, it was still at the mercy of the local rulers of the time.

As to your statement about NeoNazis in Israel, you are using a very isolated instance to compare it to the condition of the Jews in Iran today. The Jews in Iran today are Moorcheh- they dare not speak their mind like any other group in Iran. This example is like Ahmadinejad's invitation of Neturey Karta- A fringe group amongst Jews – to prove that the IRI is not Antisemetic.

As to your comment “No, I'm only applying the standard of Democracy, and I'm not talking about Jews (to be honest), I'm talking about Israel. Again, I can't do anything if that's what some people want to believe.”

As I explained, Israel is not perfect. No Democracy is. America, as a so called Democracy, had racial laws 60 years ago. France ( a country which is responsible for the killing of one million Algerian Muslims in this century) today as a “Democracy” bars Muslim women from wearing the chador in schools. Israel is only 60 years old and has been in a state of war since the first day. Israel still does not even have a constitution. Your comparing apples and oranges. Israel was a jewish nation, the arabs were trying to destroy it and Israel made laws to promote Jewish immigration. What do you expect?

4)You also say “I agree with your list, but Israel/Palestinian problem is happening now. I am against all kinds of discrimination and violence, and speak out about them. A colonialist-induced violence, however, is very rare in 21st century and particularly offensive to the developing world. That's why Palestinians get solidarity from vast majority of countries in the world like India and Vietnam where no one can accuse "antisemitic". The only reason you are seeing such a large solidarity is because the majority of the world, having been colonized, oppressed and sidelined themselves, can relate to the situation in Israel.”

Actually, the Israeli/Palestinian problem is 60 years old, not just now, and the roots are more complex than just Israel and Palestinians. You also have to include the Arab world into the equation as well- it was the entire Arab world that invaded Israel upom its creation by the UN. And again, what is happening today is not “colonialist-induced violence”. You have a democracy attempting to protect its population from terrorist acts. You look at the wall as a separation fence, the Israelis look at it as a barrier which works against terrorists blowing themselves up to meet beautiful virgins. How many suicide bombings have you seen since the erection of the wall? The barrier came uo only when the PA, who were armed by the Israelis to begin with, were not willing to control their population.
Also the “majority of the world” including many Islamic countries, who have come to accept the concept of Israel, could not give a shit about Hamas and will give the Israelis a card blanch to do whatever they want in Gaza because they are being supported by the IRI. Look at the daily death toal in Gaza. No one cares because the Israelis pulled out and instead of the Palestinians concentrating on rebuilding, they are infighting and shooting rockets into Israeli towns. Additionally, Israel has recognized that it can not rule over the Palestinians. The majority, as a democracy, wants to give the territories back- but there is no one they can give it back to at the moment and the IRI is supporting the extremist elements that have nothing to gain with peace.
I will admit that the Israelis are to blame for a lot of the problems (especially with continued settlement building which gives the Palestinians an excuse for their failures and fules the fires of hatred) but the Palestinians were in control as well here for seven years or so before the 2nd intifada. That is why, the 2nd intifada was an absolute failure. What you say may have had some validity in the 1st intifada, but today you have a different situation.
As to my list that you agree with and the level of scrutiny, The point I am trying to make is- look at the number of deaths in each of my examples and compare them to the number of deaths in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict- also look at the number of displaced people in each instance. You may speak out against all violence, but I did not see this level of loud declarations against violence and injustice when the Yugoslavs were butchering muslims or when Muslims are butchering Muslims in Iraq now or what Muslims do in Darfur today. All recent history with much deadlier results. I have not seen Ahmadinejad complain about the injustices the Muslims perpetuate against the people in Darfur. That is happening today. I have not seen any articles by Mr. Daryush about Darfur. Daryush, and many others here, have an obsession with Israeli policies. Look at all his different posts about Israel here. Saddam killed 800,000 Iranians (with Palestinian/Arab support) and I have not read one article here about it. 20,000 Palestinians have been killed in the past 60 years (and yes 800,000 or so were displaced) . In comparison to other conflicts, this is peanuts yet there is this obsession.
Look at how the IRI treats its sunni Muslims. I don't see anyone complaining about the treatment of their sunni brothers by the IRI. Why aren't we talking about that to? They are human to. I did not see multiple symposiums/blog posts about how cruel the Taliban were in Afghanistan and how they butchered their own citizens. I did not see them before 9/11 and I don't see them now. That was also very recent history. Its not a “distraction”. Its all modern history. The intellectual left (I don't care if you are a part of it or not) did not cry about Iraq when it invaded Kuwait or when saddam killed 400,000 of his own citizens. Do you remember any scrutiny of Saddam's behavior by the Muslim world/Arab league when saddam was massacring his own citizens? Imagine Jews being the Palestinians of today. The Arabs would massacare them into submission in no time. We both know that. The Israelis have not done so (and I am not talking Sabra and Shetilah or Dir Yassin).
You also say “ If you really want to help improve the situation, and you don't like these comparisons, you should be doing everything in your power to make Israelis change these racist policies, not attack those who simply observe them.”

I don't see any racism here. I still see a double standard by you. I think Zion has explained this to you very clearly as well. Judaism is not a race and Zionism is not a race- Israel was created for Jews and it made laws to promote "Jewish" immigration.

The Arabs really screwed up the politics of this in 1948 and the Zionists took advantage of their screw up. Its the Arab policies that strenghtened Israel Just Like bad Israeli policies which strenghtend the Palestinians in the 1st intifadah. Remember, all the territory that is at issue today was in Arab hands prior to 1967. The Arabs also caused 800,000 middle eastern Jews to flee their homes. I am not screeming “racism”. Its a conflict- What do you expect?

Bullshit Zion,

I don't need to imagine that. That is exactly what goes on in every nation state in the world. I had explained this before. If you happened to be born in America, you are automatically a citizen, if your parents happened to be American citizens , you are automatically a citizen, if not you have to go through a long process and a which chance of rejection.

Bullshit. Just being Jewish is not equivilant to being "born in America". America is already a nationality. Being "Jewish" is not a nationality, being "Israeli" is a nationality. Yes, if you were born to Israeli parents, you should get automatic citizenship. If your parents do not have citizenship, and you get preferential treatment versus someone else in the same situation, that's discrimination. Once again, it's not like being American already, it's like being a non-American receiving American citizenship. It's not what is practiced in America, or any other democracy. You can't escape this fact!

You are deliberately conflating the two concepts of ethnicity and nationality because that's what benefits Zionists political policies.

You can keep on insisting that Jews comprise a race all you want. That is anti-semitic. But hey, don't let logic and truth get in your way.

What logic? First, I agreed with you if you want to call it an "ethnicity", but I said there is no distinction by any scholar or the United Nations. You want to continue accusing me of antisemetic because you have no real arguments, at least you show your true colors.

The "facts" you mentioned bout Israeli british and European and US backing in the initial wars against the Arabs (and the British!) is nonsense. There is no arguing here.

Your facts are simply WRONG. Period.

I asked which facts you found "wrong." You weaseled out of it and did not provide specifics, as is your style. So I'll have to cover all of them, but remember, it's your fault this post is long.

Israel had superior troops: (from Historian Benny Morris)

On the eve of the war the number of Arab troops likely to be committed to the war was about 23,000 (10,000 Egyptians, 4,500 Transjordanians, 3,000 Iraqis, 3,000 Syrians, 2,000 ALA volunteers, 1,000 Lebanese and some Saudi Arabians), in addition to the irregular Palestinians already present. The Yishuv had 35,000 troops of the Haganah, 3,000 of Stern and Irgun and a few thousand armed settlers. Summarising the military assessments of the British, Jewish Agency and the Arabs, Morris writes, "all observers—Jewish, British, Palestinian Arab, and external Arab—agreed on the eve of the war that the Palestinians were incapable of beating the Zionists or of withstanding Zionist assault. The Palestinians were simply too weak. Prior to independence, the Haganah had managed to accumulate about 20,000 rifles and Sten guns for its 35,000 soldiers.

Furthermore from Bregman citing Ben Gurion's own diary:

As the war progressed, the IDF managed to field more troops than the Arab forces. By July 1948, the IDF was fielding 63,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949.

British helped the Israelis by helping destroy Egyptian Airforce (From Wikipedia)

the main Arab losses were the result of RAF action in response to Egyptian raids on the British air base at Ramat David near Haifa on 22 May during which 5 Egyptian Spitfires were shot down. It was also during this time that the balance of air power began to swing in favor of the Israeli Air Force following the purchase of 25 Avia S-199s from Czechoslovakia, the first of which arrived in Israel on 20 May.

This was in spite of the fact that Israelis had already attacked and shot down British Planes in January and Britain chose not to retaliate. Can you explain why?

Hispanics in the US do not have a track record of terrorism

This is bullshit race-baiting and dead wrong on two levels. First, You can't hold an entire race responsible for "terrorism". That is an argument that justifies antisemetism among other things.

Second, almost all Hispanics -who are Catholic- themselves also do not get the special immigration privileges to Israel but Jewish immigrants do. Hispanics are not responsible for terrorism, are they?

the facts that Jews of every nationality, race or color can be Israeli citizens on equal is actually an evidence against any racist element in this context. Jews form a people, and anyone who identifies himself as a Jew, no matter what background, has CHOSEN this to be his/her identity, and as such ha a right to be a citizen of the Jewish state.

Sure, anybody who believes in Wahhabist Islam could be a citizen of Afghanistan in the 90's as Osama Bin Laden and people from all over the world (including White Americans, Chinese and Africans) did. I guess this is proof that since they CHOSE this identity, the Taliban are not discriminatory. Do I have this right?

Arabs who are born in ISraeli of Arab-Israeli citizens and those who lived in the land when the state of Israel got her independence and did not leave the land are also automatically citizens of Israel.

When you say "those who did not leave the land", are you counting the forceful ethnic cleansing in that equation?

From Haifa University Historian Ilan Pappe:

in 1948, the Zionist movement waged a war against the Palestinain people in order to implement its long term plans of ethnic cleansing (whereas Israeli historians, including 'new historians', claimed that the war was waged by the Arab world against the state of Israel in order to eliminate it and it resulted in expulsions of Palestinians). The Arab world tried to prevent this cleansing, but was too fragmented, self-centered and ineffective to stop the uprooting of half of Palestine's native population, the destruction of half of its villages and towns and the killing of thousands of its people.

And since that ethnic cleansing was successfully implemented in almost 80% of Palestine without any global or regional repercussions - the ethnic cleansing policy continues ever since 1967 in the remaining 20% of the country. Creating a Jewish state in historical Palestine cleansed of Palestinians is still the ideolgoical infrastructure on which the state of Israel is based.

There is nothing extraordinary discriminatory going on here compared to all other nation states in the world.

Compared to no other democracy.

Yes they can, and their cases will be handled on an individual basis, and decided upon as any other nationality in the world.

As I said, in practice it is made extremely difficult, if not impossible. The real racism is that immigration is made much more difficult for some people based on race or religion. This is like Jim Crow laws.

You can continue insisting on your nonsense as "facts",

Once again, have the courage to challenge an individual position and we'll talk about it. I think you are weaseling out of a real argument by continuing to be vague. 

What is the point in repeating your wrong premises, Q?

Q, I actually explained all those points. But, here we go again:
"Imagine I told you that anyone in the US can be a US citizen, they just have to go through the normal process. BUT the normal process has a lot of benefits for people of certain "ethnicity" and "guarantees" citizenship for them, while for people of another ethnicity, it's a much longer process, with frequent rejections and no financial help."

I don't need to imagine that. That is exactly what goes on in every nation state in the world. I had explained this before. If you happened to be born in America, you are automatically a citizen, if your parents happened to be American citizens , you are automatically a citizen, if not you have to go through a long process and a which chance of rejection. You want to call this discrimination or racism, go for it. But it would be good only for you. Why is that suddenly different when it comes to Israel? Understand this. This is not in anyways "reducing" other people's rights. No one has a pre established "right" to be a citizen of any country.

You can keep on insisting that Jews comprise a race all you want. That is anti-semitic. But hey, don't let logic and truth get in your way.

The "facts" you mentioned bout Israeli british and European and US backing in the initial wars against the Arabs (and the British!) is nonsense. There is no arguing here. Your facts are simply WRONG. Period.

Hispanics in the US do not have a track record of terrorism specifically focused on wiping US off the map and ethnically cleansing the Anglo -saxons there, throwing them n the sea. If it did, you can bet your ass every one else would have made sure by any means possible the mexicans wouldn't get into the majority.

the facts that Jews of every nationality, race or color can be Israeli citizens on equal is actually an evidence against any racist element in this context. Jews form a people, and anyone who identifies himself as a Jew, no matter what background, has CHOSEN this to be his/her identity, and as such ha a right to be a citizen of the Jewish state.
Arabs who are born in ISraeli of Arab-Israeli citizens and those who lived in the land when the state of Israel got her independence and did not leave the land are also automatically citizens of Israel.
There is nothing extraordinary discriminatory going on here compared to all other nation states in the world.

"So, if let's say all the Palestinians in UN camps in Lebanon decide to "individually" immigrate to Israel they can."
Yes they can, and their cases will be handled on an individual basis, and decided upon as any other nationality in the world.

You can continue insisting on your nonsense as "facts", and discard my arguments as "arbitrary" definitions. Any one can do that in response to any one's arguments. The fact that you can't handle and negate my arguments and have to resort to such techniques is evidence of your bankrupt position, Q.

Ey Hamvatan

I'm glad you're getting into this discusson. I will have to leave it soon and go away for a few days but I have some responses below to the problem you have.

The fact is that today, 60 years after this “colonialist enterprise”, Israel is a Jewish state controlled and run by Jews.

I accept this and that's why I'm not calling for dissolution of Israel and the return of all colonists. Just like South Africa, the past cannot be undone but recognition of it is absolutely necessary for a peaceful future. In my opinion, the Israelis for the most part do not acknowledge this reality that you just admitted to.

Additionally, the fact is, whether you like to admit it or not, most countries throughout history could not guarantee the protection of its Jews. Even under the protection of Islam, there were issues.

First, this is far from true. Most European countries are just as safe, if not safer for Jews. There are neonazis inside Israel but not in some other countries where Jews reside (for example Iran), to say nothing of safety concerns as a result of the Palestinian and Lebanese conflicts. The United States, which is home to almost as many Jews than Israel, is actually quite safe and Jews have flourished here.

Second, I accept that no country could "guarantee" the protectin of its Jews. But to what level is this reasonable? No country could guarantee the protection of its gays, lesbians, Satanists and el-binos either, does that mean that each of these groups are entitled to establish their own country? No country can guarantee the protection of anybody.

I agree with "problem of multiculturalism" in Islamic countries, but why is htat unique to Jews? There has been very little hate crime against Jews in Iran, for example, far less than hate crime against Muslims in the US. I agree that it's bad, but let's treat everyone equally.

You are placing a higher burden /standard on the nation of Israel (Jews to be honest) in its treatment of the Palestinians than other nations with similar problems or history.

No, I'm only applying the standard of Democracy, and I'm not talking about Jews (to be honest), I'm talking about Israel. Again, I can't do anything if that's what some people want to believe.

That is why you are hearing the “anti-Semite” label on this issue.

So you admit "antisemetism" is being used as a weapon against my criticism of Israel? This is rediculous. I could call you KKK for any reason I want, that does not make me correct.

The list can go on and on and on and on…………….

I agree with your list, but Israel/Palestinian problem is happening now. I am against all kinds of discrimination and violence, and speak out about them. A colonialist-induced violence, however, is very rare in 21st century and particularly offensive to the developing world. That's why Palestinians get solidarity from vast majority of countries in the world like India and Vietnam where no one can accuse "antisemetic". The only reason you are seeing such a large solidarity is because the majority of the world, having been colonized, oppressed and sidelined themselves, can relate to the situation in Israel.

I don't know on what basis you call me "intellectual left", I'm flattered but don't put labels on people you don't know.

You can not separate Jews from Zionists as much as you like because Zionists are Jews (with the exception of some Christian yahoos in America).

Either I'm confronting Zionists because they are Jews, or I'm attacking them for other (real) reasons as I mentioned. If I'm doing it because they are Jews, why don't I attack other Jewish groupings? wouldn't an antisemite do that? In all honesty, I'm actually uncomfortable about the term "Zionists" myself. I think the term has been hijacked to fit a modern political ideology. There is nothing wrong with Historical and philosophical Zionism which as been practiced by Jews for thousands of years.

I am not telling you not to criticize Israel- you have every right to. It’s the level of scrutiny that is at issue and the level of rhetoric when considering other conflicts.

"level of scrutiny" is in the eye of the beholder. This argument is abusive because the "right level" is being defined as very low by Israel hawks. In addition, they constantly want to take some aspects of this discussion "off the table" no matter what the "level" is. That's not a solution, that's another abusive tactic. Instead of curtailing speech and trying to figure out how much one is allowed to criticize, we should use the standard of validity. If the argument is valid, it should not matter how much it is emphasized. If it's for a trivial matter, it would naturally not find much audience.

As I said, this conflict is happening right now, in front of our eyes. I can't do anything about Japanese imperialism, Slavery and Native Americans. I do talk about them, but nobody is being killed on daily basis on those conflicts. Also, there are people who dedicate their lives to one or two issues they feel passionate about: like AIDS or poverty. It's stupid to say that they must be hypocrites because there are other issues they choose not to spend their time on. That's not proof of anything, it's only a distraction.

You are unfair and unrealistic when it comes to this issue. And yes, when there is a comparison between Israelis and Nazis or Israelis and South Africa, I believe this to be borderline anti-Semitic because there is no comparison.

I think Nazi analogy is going too far, but not the South Africa analogy. I've already explained the historical similarity and I'm not the only one in the world who sees the behavioral parallels, whether it's second class status, "jewish only roads", bantustans in the west bank or apartheid wall built illegally for the purpose of divide and conquor, the evidence is clear. Of course it's not exactly the same as South Africa, but certainly comparable. I don't know what Israel gains from being at best "just a notch" below apartheid South Africa.

If you really want to help improve the situation, and you don't like these comparisons, you should be doing everything in your power to make Israelis change these racist policies, not attack those who simply observe them.

PS Ken...

Yes, it is true.  Koroush is a madman.  But then again so was Shah Ismail.  So perhaps there is hope for him since he is descended from the Shah's Seven Tribes.  I myself am descended from the Twelve Tribes.  7'ers and 12'ers...there we go again...

Koroush, please do not respond to Ken...

he is no doubt reacting to some of your earlier posts, as was I, in conjunction with the new ones.  He has his reasons. Let the discussion continue in a civilized fashion, I beg of you.

I do understand not all Shah Ismail's followers were Muslims.  It is thought by many that he himself was part Trebizond Greek, as I am sure you already know. Nevertheless a modified Shiism incorporating Turkic Shamanic and Mazdaist elements was the crucible on which the Pahlavi's nation state was formed.

Dar in boMbast...dar in sandbaaq...this is the sandbox...this is the dark closet of Nure Daanesh..this is the new Gondwanaland...let your fingers do the googling through the CyberPages...

Mr. Ken, serious topic...yes, they are very serious

but, until the lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter.

Tou Asstaree nefahmee!

Korosh Sassanian You are a MAD MAN!

You are MAD and CRAZY.You really need a HELP from PROFESSIONAL.Stop coming to this site,we discuss serious issues.YOU are such a ANNOYING person. GET LOST.

Religion and race don't matter in an election?

WTF, even in Star Trek, James T. Kirk was a white boy with plenty of colors around him! So, Israel should be ruled by a chinese muslim! Actually, the Chinese love the Jews!

Can you imagine a Christian ruling Iran or a Jew ruling Saudi Arabia or a muslim ruling Germany!

By GW defeated the Brits today some few hundred years ago in NJ! Who knew!

Q, Zion & Rosie

Dear Q, Zion & Rosie,

I enjoyed your exchanges very much. I think all here are extremely educated and smart- and its refreshing to see some good debate- although heated and emotional. Q & Rosie let me try to explain the problem I have with your arguments and rhetoric.

Assuming all your criticism of Israel is true- By that I mean that Israeli is "racist", "oppressor" and how it was an extension of colonialist enterprise......

The fact is that today, 60 years after this “colonialist enterprise”, Israel is a Jewish state controlled and run by Jews.

Additionally, the fact is, whether you like to admit it or not, most countries throughout history could not guarantee the protection of its Jews. Even under the protection of Islam, there were issues.

Yes, anti Semitism as we know it, is a European creation. However, Islam is not exactly an understanding religion when it comes to multiculturalism, and for sure, Islamic leadership is not that open as evidenced by the issues Islam/Muslim leadership is having with the rest of the world these days.

Please look at the larger picture. You are placing a higher burden /standard on the nation of Israel (Jews to be honest) in its treatment of the Palestinians than other nations with similar problems or history. That is why you are hearing the “anti-Semite” label on this issue.

Since we are all educated here, we all know the history and examples such as:

1) Americans and what they did to the Indians
2) Slavery- Worldwide
3) The historic equal protection issues in US
4) What the Europeans did to Africa
5) What China does with its neighbors
6) What the Japanese did to the Koreans and Chinese
7) Hutoos & Tootsis
8) Serbs & Corats & Muslims
9) Muslim against muslim (not just shia vs. sunni)
The list can go on and on and on and on…………….However, the intellectual left (among others such as you) places the Israeli/Palestinian conflict at a higher level of scrutiny. This is unfair and sometimes unfortunately anti-Semitic. You can not separate Jews from Zionists as much as you like because Zionists are Jews (with the exception of some Christian yahoos in America). I am not telling you not to criticize Israel- you have every right to. It’s the level of scrutiny that is at issue and the level of rhetoric when considering other conflicts. You are unfair and unrealistic when it comes to this issue. And yes, when there is a comparison between Israelis and Nazis or Israelis and South Africa, I believe this to be borderline anti-Semitic because there is no comparison.

Israel by no means is a perfect country. But its a hell of a lot better than any model in the middle east, Africa and many nations in Asia. It also treats its citizens, regardless of race, much better than many of these nations (again I said Israel is not perfect). For Jews who can not be guaranteed protection in the majority of the paces in the world, as evidenced through 2000 years of history, its the best place in the world.

Rosie jan

You don't need to remind me of the Safavid Dynasty. I came face to face with a painting of one of his legal advisers when visiting the Louvre. My clan was one of the Shah Seven tribes.

Shah Esmail Safavid brought about the unity of seven large tribes, thus forming the Qezelbash Corps.

But, you should know not all members of the Shah Seven tribes were Muslims.

Anyway, here is another cause, as Martin Luther was excommunicated by Roman Catholic Church this day over 500 years ago. :)

Daryush, it's okay...

Don't be embarrassed. You should feel very proud. I'm so happy. Thank you so vmuch.

Robin

Rosie you are right

Actually after reading your comment, I am embarrassed about my comments. I have learned something important from you. Thank you.

You don't need to make excuses

If you don't want to continue, you don't have to make up excuses. I did not "intentionally" misunderstand anything. I gave you a definition of discrimination which was actually from UN. You still seem to claim that Israel is not discriminating even though it meets the definition. If you like the sound of your own voice, you can keep repeating it. But it still does not meet the definition. Anyone reading can see that much.

I love your "one stroke" nullification of my entire post. Which "facts" are wrong? Tell me and I'll provide the evidence, if that matters to you.

Anyone can become an Israeli citizen, they just have to go through the normal process.

Hahaha. Wow. That's a real good one.

Imagine I told you that anyone in the US can be a US citizen, they just have to go through the normal process. BUT the normal process has a lot of benefits for people of certain "ethnicity" and "guarantees" citizenship for them, while for people of another ethnicity, it's a much longer process, with frequent rejections and no financial help.

Question: would the above scenario be racist or not?

Let's say there is a law in that says "ethnic Europeans" have a "right" to US citizenship but hey, anyone else can go through the "normal process".

Would you accept this as fair and democratic?

I predict you will not give a straight answer.

You are now grasping at straws. Finding nothing racist in my rhetoric you mount a vague attack on the fact that I used the word "look" without actually making an argument. I attributed that to Ashkenazi, which you conveniently skipped. My original point (which you dropped like a rock) was that this was like an invasion by a people that (whatever YOU may call them) were perceived as white Europeans, or otherwise foreigners (not unlike what you now say is a "problem" with arab immigration). This isn't even my own invention, it comes from studies of the many problems that exist within the Israeli society and race relations among Ashkenazi, Sephardim and Mizrahim. It's not an exclusively Arab/Jew issue. Discrimination of this type (against "dark" Jews, bedouins, etc.) is also prevelant in Israel, and easily backed by demographics of poverty, government participation, University education, and other metrics of social health. But that's another subject alltogether.

I didn't misunderstand you. You say Israel was founded to be a "Jewish" state and a democracy. And you expect that it's perfectly OK for a democracy to restrict the growth of one race over another. You say it's like any other country, OK, let's me ask you a question which you will answer truthfully if you are honest:

Suppose USA said that "Hispanics" are having more children than ?Anglos, therefore we need to increase immigration of Europeans and decrease immigration from people of hispanic ancestry. In what universe would this not be blatently racist? Just the "objective" of needing to maintain "supermacy" of one group over another is anti-democratic.

Of course, what you are really saying is that Israel is NOT actually like any other country. Israel is special, so we need different rules. Rules that make this racial "preference" OK, on the account that it was found as a "Jewish" nation. Well, that's part of what I have a problem with. I don't think Israel should have any special treatment. If it wants to discriminate against one population, that's fine, but don't call it a democracy.

Your analysis of ethnicity is lacking sorely. Aliya allows Jews of all nationality to immigrate to Israel hassle-free and ahead of non-Jews. Many of these Jews have their own unique ethnicities and are frequently ethnically closer to their country of birth than to Ashkenazi society. In addition, they are citizens of other countries which does not fit your analogy of "French" and "Iranian." Both of these countries already have Jewish citizens. Plus, I can receive preferential treatment in immigration as a Jewish convert, too. In this case, it has nothing to do with ethnicity and only religion. How do you explain this away? Your analogy breaks down.

Lastly, you say that all Arabs can become Israeli citizens individually. So, if let's say all the Palestinians in UN camps in Lebanon decide to "individually" immigrate to Israel they can. I suppose they just choose not to.

That's BS. At best, it may be possible in theory, but not in practice. But I'm not even sure it's possible in theory given that right now, even family reunification between Israeli citizens and those in the West bank is not possible. So you're telling me, you can't immigrate to Israel if you have a spouse there, but you can as an individual Arab? Give me a break.

Yes, this is getting tiersome. You are just repeating your own talking points over and over again. Somebody told you Israel is not racist and you just repeat it. Ok, whatever. You can stop whenver you want.

PS.

Your obsession with this point is itself based on the hidden premise that "WE" zionists are in charge of world affairs and can enforce our "definitions" on you poor hapless and oppressed freedom fighters. This is exactly Hitler's obsession as well.

Which one of us is making assumptions about the other? You admittedly have no idea who I am, but you are now calling me a "hapless freedom fighter" and saying that I have "hidden" antisemetism since I have not stated any? Do you need a special power to detect these hidden traits or can normal humans do it? I'd like to know how to read minds. So please share.

Still insisting on "not getting it"

What is the matter with you, Q?
"OF course it is very convinient for you to "define" what arguments are and are not antisemetic. This is exactly what's unfair about it. Why should one side get to decide what is debatable and what isn't? "
I am not "defining" anything. I am arguing, in response to your accusations, why your types of "criticisms" are hidden forms of anti-semitism because they distort facts and are derived from assumptions, hidden assumptions, that are anti-semitic. It is not a matter of "defining" or "deciding". You want to insist on putting equivalence of one side over the other. Fine, you "define" your own "definition"s and stick to them. (As if you are not already doing it). Your obsession with this point is itself based on the hidden premise that "WE" zionists are in charge of world affairs and can enforce our "definitions" on you poor hapless and oppressed freedom fighters. This is exactly Hitler's obsession as well. It is not "our" power, "our" definitions. It is the fact that what I said s objectively correct and yours is objectively shown to be biased and disposed, and truth always gets the upper hand, especially in a free modern and rationality based of today. That is what is the real issue that is hurting you the most, and I can't help you there.