Trump is no more racist than mainstream Israeli policy

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

http://972mag.com/trump-is-no-more-racist-than-mainstream-israeli-policy/114613/

Israeli politicians are joining the global pushback against Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim racism. But guess what other country bans Muslim immigration?
---
Racism — and various forms of discrimination against Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians — is just as rampant here in Israel as it is inside the Trump camp, if not more so. Except in Israel, racism and ethno-religious discrimination is not only accepted rhetoric in the halls of power and the sidewalk cafes of Tel Aviv, it is also long-standing formal state policy.

Trump called to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In Israel, there is already a law banning Muslims from immigrating — the “Law of Return” which gives that right to Jews alone. Even those who were born here but fled, or whose families lived here for generations upon generations, are forbidden from returning.

The Anti-Defamation League on Monday called Trump’s plan to “bar people from entry to the United States based on their religion” is “deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values.” Has the ADL ever spoken out against Israel’s Jewish-only immigration law and discriminatory border control policies?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. Sadly more...

Inherent institutional racism can also be seen in the two separate-and-unequal legal systems for Palestinians and Israelis living meters from one another in the occupied West Bank. It can be seen the total negligence of infrastructure, resources and education for Palestinians in annexed East Jerusalem as opposed to Jewish neighborhoods in the same territory. It can be seen in the rampant and deep-seeded discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel when it comes to housing, land confiscation and re-distribution, education and employment. And these are just the most obvious examples.

If we follow the logic of demanding that Donald Trump be barred from entering Israel’s Knesset, then so too should a large number of elected officials serving in that Knesset.

There is Education Minister Naftali Bennett who has bragged about killing Arabs and suggested that Jews are more evolutionarily advanced than Arabs. There is Likud MK Yaron Mazuz, who told Arab members of Knesset they should be grateful for even being allowed to serve as elected officials, that “We’re doing you a favor by letting you sit here.” There is Prime Minister Netanyahu, of course, who complained that Palestinian citizens of Israel were exercising their right to vote — “in droves.” There was the sitting foreign minister, Avigdor Liberman, who advocated population transfer.

And that’s just the right-wing camp.

[oberliner]

3. Why would Muslims want to immigrate to Israel?

The way you characterize that country, one would think it is the last place on earth any Muslim would want to go.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. Oh, a lot of Palestinians who are muslim would like to return after being kicked out in 47-48.

That's for starters.

[oberliner]

14. Anyone who was kicked out during those years ought to be able to do so

They would all be senior citizens at this point and ought to be able to live out the remainder of their lives in Israel if they so chose.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

16. And their progeny. After all the expulsion is still an expulsion for all of them, right?

[oberliner]

18. They ought to be granted automatic citizenship in the newly created Palestinian state

If they never actually lived in what is currently Israel, then I think becoming citizens of the newly created Palestinian state would make more sense and would enable them to live as Palestinians in a country that is designated as the Palestinian state (should they choose to do so).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. Why not let them return to their homes and villages.

Oh, that's right...

1. Israel has destroyed what they could and stole the rest.

2. Hasbarists will cry, "How can Israel be *Israel if we grant the right of return to those whom we ethnically cleansed...along with their progeny? They should just go live in a chopped up Palestinian state: courtesy of illegal Israeli colonization."

[oberliner]

21. You asked about people who never had homes or villages there

They were born in other countries but maintain their Palestinian heritage.

Thus, it makes sense for them to have automatic citizenship in a Palestinian state.

Edit to add a personal note:

My grandparents lived in a village in a country that isn't the US. They were forcibly evicted from their homes, but I do not feel that I have any rights to that home today. Financial compensation might be nice though.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

25. If a Jew, anywhere in the world, has a right of return...

to live in Israel as a citizen then by right all those who were forced out of pre/post Israel, as well as their progeny, deserve the same right.

With your logic the same ethnic cleansing could happen again, and those who flee or are forced out would have less right to return than some American Kahanaist: whose family has lived in either America or Europe for well on two millenia.

That's not only humanely criminal but also morally bankrupt.

[aranthus]

38. Except that there is no Jewish Right of Return

Never has been. What there is is an Israeli Law of return, which Israel, as a sovereign state, has every right to enact. There's no Jewish Right of Return and no Palestinian Right of Return. And since I've raised this point before, I have to wonder why you keep repeating something that is so patently false and that has been pointed out as false on this forum before.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

39. Well, your point is semantic BS, and Israel has no right to

ethnically cleanse anybody, make excuses for keeping them out.

But keep blowing smoke up our backside.

[aranthus]

42. It's not semantics at all.

Jews can move to Israel because the Israeli government wants them to and allows it. The so called right of return is the demand that the Palestinians can immigrate to Israel even if the government doesn't want them. The former is the exercise of sovereignty, and the latter is the denial of sovereignty. Two very different things. But you don't care. You keep making the same false claims (like the ethnic cleansing lie) and failing to back any of them up (because you can't).

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

43. You just described apartheid.

And you just justified ethnic cleansing.

"Jews can move to Israel because the Israeli government wants to and allows it."

Teally, do you fir one second think about what you are typing before throwing it out?

[aranthus]

44. Obviously, you only know the Leftist definition of apartheid and not the real world one.

Because I did not describe apartheid nor did what I write justify ethnic cleansing. You're just making stuff up.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

47. Your words do it for you. Perhaps you should read them before

you hit post.

[shira]

54. So back up your claim, or fold. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. I don't take requests from dubious individuals.

[aranthus]

63. Clearly he can't n/t

[shira]

64. Seems all supporters of Israel are dubious individuals unworthy of rational discourse.

And of course you're right.

He can't. He's punted so many times he was asked to justify his answer, I've lost count.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

69. No, shira. Just some.

And as always, my questionable friend, thanks for the kick.

[Shaktimaan]

71. Why?

If a Jew, anywhere in the world, has a right of return...to live in Israel as a citizen then by right all those who were forced out of pre/post Israel, as well as their progeny, deserve the same right.

Why? What does one thing have to do withthe other?

When have the progeny of refugees ever been entitled to the right of return to a state they never inhabited? Furthermore, if a Palestinian state were to offer a right of return, how would that not fulfill the objective? It is still Palestine they'd be returning to, isn't it?

Jews have the right to move to Israel to mitigate the effects of anti-semitism. If Palestinians can eventually claim right to go to Palestine, would that not be an adequate equivalent?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

73. Well, shak. It has something to do with a matter you don't undetstand.

Human rights.

Your lame attempt argument, worthy of Naftali Bennett award for land theft and ethnic cleansing, is duly noted.



Merry Christmas.

[Shaktimaan]

74. Is it really about human rights?

Wouldn't the demand that Palestinians have the right to citizenship in the country they were born and live in be a far more compelling human rights argument than the demand that they should be granted citizenship in a state they've never set foot in?

If this were really an overwhelming human rights issue then why hasn't the same idea been applied to anyone else? Why is this a right that's individual to Palestinians?

[Little Tich]

80. In a fully democratic country, rights are granted without regards to ethnicity.

Last edited Sat Dec 26, 2015, 07:05 AM - Edit history (1)

If Israel was a fully democratic country like Norway or the US, the Law of return would apply to everyone whose ancestral homeland is in the area that Israel covers, not only Jews.

Some people want Israel to be more democratic and extend equal rights to all, regardless of ethnicity. That would of course mean the end of Israel as the Jewish State, and it would be the Democratic Israel instead.

There are others who think that Israel should remain only partially democratic - a Jewish state with full rights for Jews and less for non-Jews.

I'm personally against the idea of a Jewish ethnocracy, but currently the lesser rights awarded to non-Jewish citizens are not discriminatory enough to be Apartheid, so frankly, it's not a big issue for me.

Note: the US is perhaps not a fully democratic country in some other respects, but openly racist laws can't be passed in the US.

[Shaktimaan]

81. Are they?

In a fully democratic country, rights are granted without regards to ethnicity. If Israel was a fully democratic country like Norway or the US, the Law of return would apply to everyone whose ancestral homeland is in the area that Israel covers, not only Jews.

Why would they? In the case of Israel's Law of Return, Jews aren't granted automatic immigration because their ancestral homeland lies in Israel. While this historical/cultural connection to the land drove Zionism's desire to form their state in Palestine, it doesn't have much to do with the rationale behind either Israel or the Law of Return's establishment.

As with other ethnic democracies, Israel's existence is based on a perceived need for ethnic self-determination. The Law of Return's metrics for determining who is accepted aren't based on Judaism's own ethnic or religious requirements but rather the sort of standards used by the Nazis. Non-Jewish spouses, children, etc, of anyone who has at least one Jewish grandparent would qualify. In other words, if you are Jewish enough to be persecuted as a Jew then you are Jewish enough to be granted entry to Israel.

In this sense, we see a lot of similarities with other ethnic democracies, all of whom demonstrate an obligation to the well being and safety of their tribe outside of their borders. Japan, Greece, Germany, Finland, Ireland, Italy, etc, all offer expedited or automatic citizenship to members of their diaspora.

That said, you raise a stickier issue by insisting that Israel must choose between "full democracy" and their continued existence. Insisting on including all Palestinian refugees and their descendants in Israel's RoR while deliberately ignoring the implications of the 100 year long conflict is really just an academic exercise. No state hews so closely to professed ideals as to endanger itself. Even America still weeds out Communists and former Nazi Party members, after all.

There are others who think that Israel should remain only partially democratic - a Jewish state with full rights for Jews and less for non-Jews.

Of course, once immigrants become citizens they are ostensibly granted equal rights under the law in Israel. All minorities in all states experience some degree of racism and institutionalized discrimination... that said, what openly racist laws or less-than-full rights for Arabs in Israel are you referring to?

[Little Tich]

82. Some Jews claim that their link to the land of Israel goes back a long time, way before 1948.

It's also that link that is used to justify their right to return to their ancestral and historical homeland. Unfortunately, on top of that, that link is used to justify Israel being the world's only ethnocracy (apart from perhaps Japan), and not having to become a normal democracy like the rest of the world's democratic countries.

We seem to differ on the meaning of ethnocracy / ethnic democracies. In Greece, Germany, Finland, Ireland and Italy, citizenship is the same for everyone regardless of ethnicity. For example, there's no difference being a "German" German or a "Turkish" German - legally they're both fully German. If you receive German citizenship you become a German, period. In Israel, the Jewish State, there are some citizens who didn't become Jews just because they've got Israeli citizenship. Furthermore, there are so many differences between the rights afforded to those with Israeli Jewish citizenship and those poor buggers with non-Jewish citizenship, that I have no problem defining the non-Jewish citizenship as being only partial Israeli citizenship.

There is an Israeli Human Rights organization called Adalah that has collected and compiled a list of discriminatory laws in Israel; it has details on how people with non-Jewish Israeli citizenship are legally discriminated against.

Link to their database here: http://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/7771

There's also an excellent MondoWeiss article on the Adalah list. I have no problem with Mondoweiss:

Link to "The Adalah database of 50 discriminatory laws in Israel" at MondoWeiss:
http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/database-discriminatory-israel

[Shaktimaan]

83. I'm familiar with Adalah.

Unfortunately, aside from a few glaring examples of obvious discriminatory legislation, I didn't see most of their points as especially relevant. For example:

Absorption of Discharged Soldiers Law

Description: According to this June 2008 law, any registered university or college student who has completed his or her military service and is a resident of a designated “National Priority Area” such as the Naqab (Negev), the Galilee, or illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank will be granted a “compensation package” including full tuition for the first year of academic education, a year of free preparatory academic education, student housing benefits, and others.

This benefits package adds to the already extensive educational benefits package enjoyed by discharged soldiers in Israel. Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel are exempt from military service and are thus excluded from receiving these state-allocated benefits.

The idea here is that because Palestinian-Israelis aren't forced to serve they are ineligible for these benefits. Of course, Arabs aren't barred from serving and then receiving these benefits, they just aren't required to.

Most of the examples in the MW article are antiquated and no longer apply. If we're looking at discriminatory laws from the 40s, 50s and 60s we hardly have to go to Israel in order to be appalled. It bears mentioning that these were the years immediately following the war of independence; fought between the same Jewish and Arab populations now living together.

That said, I'm not implying that a lack of institutionalized discrimination exists, or that as a democracy it isn't flawed by it's prioritizing Jewish nationalism. I just read an interesting paper that talks about this subject by Sammy Smooha that you should look at.

http://img2.timg.co.il/communafiles/32398285.pdf

WRT the idea that citizenship in other democracies comes without institutionalized racism, I don't see how you could possibly think that. For example, just recently in Alabama, the state legislature voted to require DMV ID in order to vote, only to then shut down half of the DMV offices throughout the state; the ones located in areas with large minority populations, as it would happen.

I'm not sure that a real difference exists between the rights afforded to Israeli minorities versus those in places like America.

[Little Tich]

84. I think Israel should be judged by its most discriminatory laws, or perhaps the sum of them.

It's not useful to bring up the least discriminatory law on the Adalah list and refuting its presence on that list. Either way, I prefer to use the American legal system as a comparison, and if a law would be considered discriminatory in the US, it should be considered iscriminatory in Israel too. Not a single one of those laws on the Adalah list would be OK in the US.

For example, the laws as described in the MW article just wouldn't be possible to pass in the US:

1. 1950 law about confiscation of Absentee Landlord Property. This law defines persons who were expelled, fled, or who left the country after November 29, 1947 as “absentee.” Property belonging to “absentees” was placed under the control of the State of Israel with the Custodian for Absentees’ Property. The Absentee Property Law was the main legal instrument used by Israel to take possession of the land belonging to the internal and external Palestinian refugees, and Muslim Waqf properties across the state. This law continues to be used to this day by quasi-governmental agencies in Israel to take over Palestinian properties in East Jerusalem, for example.

2. 1950 Law of Return. This allows every Jewish person to immigrate to Israel and this extends to the children and grandchildren of Jews, as well as their spouses, and the spouses of their children and grandchildren. The flip side of this is that the rights of Palestinians and others to enter the state and become citizens, even if they were born in the area that is now the State of Israel, are extremely restrictive. This discrimination against the non-Jewish minority has been periodically reinforced. For example, the ban on family unification law of 2003 prohibits citizens of Israel from reuniting with Palestinian spouses living in the West Bank or Gaza.

3. In 1952 the state authorized the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, and other Zionist bodies founded at the turn of the 20th century to function in Israel as quasi-governmental entities in order to further advance the goals of the Zionist movement, to the detriment of minorities.

4. The Land Acquisition Law of 1953 transferred the land of 349 Arab towns and villages—approximately 1.2 million dunams in all (~468 square miles)—to the state to be used preferentially for the Jewish majority.

5. In 1953, the Knesset bestowed governmental authorities on the Jewish National Fund (JNF or Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael) to purchase land for exclusively Jewish use. The state granted financial advantages, including tax relief to facilitate such purchases.

6. In 1960, the state passed a law which stipulates that the ownership of “Israel lands”—namely the 93% of land under the control of the state, the Jewish National Fund, and the Development Authority—cannot be transferred in any manner.

Read more: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/database-discriminatory-israel

These are some of the most important laws that make Israel into a bottom-rung racist democracy. Thye're old, but they're still in effect and consist the cornerstone of Israel's racist policies. The current trend in Israel is to strenghten the discriminatory practices against non-Jewish Israelis, and I personally think the coming of the Israeli Apartheid state is just a matter of time.

BTW, I've read the paper you refer to before. An ethnic democracy like Israel is a step backwards, away from democracy, as ethnicity decides your individual democratic rights. Jewish and Democratic are two mutually exclusive values, and the strenghtening of one weakens the other. While I agree with the conclusion that an "ethnic democracy" like Israel is viable, I personally can't see why racism is a good thing. The paper even gives voice to my own misgivings:

Nevertheless, Arab civil liberties are not adequately protected in Israel for four reasons. First and foremost, in the absence of a constitution or a bill of rights with a superior standing over other laws, Arabs lack an independent legal base to fight unfair treatment. Second, so long as Israel has not reached a comprehensive peace settlement with the Arab world, it is legally in a permanent state of emergency, and the Emergency Regulations are still in effect. Since the Arabs are officially considered a security risk, these regulations operate mostly against them. Third, the present implementation of the Jewish-Zionist character of the state contains certain discriminations against Arabs. Finally, Jewish public opinion not only condones constraints imposed on Arabs, but also endorses preferential treatment of Jews. Each one of these factors, let alone the special effect of their combination, is sufficient to downgrade Arabs to a status of second-class citizens.

(Sammy Smooha, Ethnic Democracy: Israel as an Archetype. Israel Studies, Wolume 2, Number 2, p216)
Read more: http://img2.timg.co.il/communafiles/32398285.pdf

[Shaktimaan]

72. what does "humanely criminal" mean?

That's not only humanely criminal but also morally bankrupt.

I disagree, obviously, but since you feel so strongly, I have a question. Since you believe that all Palestinians and their descendants have an intrinsic right of return not just to the country or region they fled, but to the exact area, does that then mean you support an identical right for Jews who were expelled from areas which now fall in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or Gaza? Many of the settler families who live in Hebron are descended from families who were expelled or massacred in 1929. Would you support the idea that Jews, who (for example), may have been born in Gaza, or lived the majority of their lives there, have a right to claim Palestinian citizenship and return there?

[Shaktimaan]

75. so then...

If a Jew, anywhere in the world, has a right of return...to live in Israel as a citizen then by right all those who were forced out of pre/post Israel, as well as their progeny, deserve the same right.

Does that mean that if any Arab anywhere has the right to access their religious sites, (like Al Aqsa mosque), then Jews should also have the right to visit their own religious sites, (like the Temple Mount?) I ask because this was part of the agreement made all the way back in 1949 between the Arabs and Israelis and while Israel seemed to fulfill their part easily, the Palestinians seem unable or unwilling to grasp the concept of freedom of religion.

How do you think the best way would be to keep Palestinians from destroying non-Islamic religious sites, and ensuring free and open access to shared religious sites?

[King_David]

34. Have you not read the antisemitic filth about Jewish bloodlines, posted here ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134121511

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

35. It's genetics, dave. Everybody has genes. Genes tell where your ancestors came from...

or didn't come from.

[shira]

36. So Ashkenasi have no claim to Israel based on genetics, is that right? n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

40. I'm sorry that you aren't able to follow a simple conversation.

Genes are a funny thing, aren't they?

[oberliner]

2. Most Middle Eastern countries ban Israelis from even setting foot in them

In some cases, even having evidence of once visiting Israel is enough to get them to ban you from entering.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. So you're suggesting that ahem...Democratic Israel is as bad as some right wing theocratic kingdoms?

[oberliner]

13. Israel has a different relationship with many Muslim countries than the US does

Most of them do not recognize its existence and the leaders of several of them have made statements indicating that they would like to see it exist no longer.

Similarly, with respect to immigration, Israel has explicitly from its creation been defined a Jewish state and have immigration policies along those lines.

The United States purports to be very different in this regard.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

15. "Similarly, with respect to immigration, Israel has explicitly from its creation been defined

a Jewish state and have immigration policies along those lines."

A state created with the help of the ethnic cleansing is what kind of state, Ober?

A state that is unfriendly to muslims is a state that is in parity with states that are unfriendly to jews.

[oberliner]

19. It was a state created to counter world-wide anti-semitism

And the accelerating anti-semitism (and subsequent mass annihilation) of Jews that was happening across Europe.

Those unique circumstances are what led to the founding a Jewish state - to, in some small way, attempt to rectify the great historical injustice of many hundreds of years.

Had the Partition Plan been accepted, no one would have been cleansed from anywhere, and two states - one Jewish and Arab would have been created leading to an independent Palestinian side alongside a new Jewish state, both existing for the first time in modern history.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. "It was a state created to counter world-wide anti-semitism..."

And in the process Israel created an exodus through ethnic cleansing then denied the right of return to those who wanted to come home...in effect becoming what it had been created to safeguard against: a haven against injustice.

It was not, and is still not, justifyable by Israel to gobble up the Palestinian partitian and deny the right of return if those forced to flee due to ethnic cleansing and murder by zionist forces.

[oberliner]

24. That's not true

If the Partition Plan had been accepted and had the Arab states in the region not invaded, there would have been no need for any exodus.

We've gone back and forth on the history numerous times - we don't even seem to agree on basic facts, so I am not sure there is any need to revisit this particular argument.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

26. Bullshit. Israel has no right to keep a population

away from their homes that they were expelled from, and since Israel accepted partition they have no legal right to take what was/is not theirs.

To take from the Palestinian partitian would also mean that Israel has denounced it through illegal colonization, land grabs under the guise of military zones, and creating apartheid for the Palestinians.

Is Israel is for partitian then they have to accept that for Israel alone. They have no right to nullify the Palestinian partitian and theirs or they ate just as guilty as those you accuse.

[sabbat hunter]

65. not all were expelled

only about 1/3rd were. As for the rest, about 1/3rd left on their own, and 1/3rd left due to Arab commanders on the ground telling them to leave.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

66. Please keep up with the hasbara BS.

Anything to justify expulsion, right?

[Little Tich]

67. Where did you get those figures from?

They seem to be complete revisionist BS. There were no Arab commanders on the ground who told the Palestinians to leave, that would have been contrary to the reasons to them being there in the first place.

[sabbat hunter]

68. From esteemed historian

Benny Morris.
And to be clear, the orders from Arab commanders did not come from their leadership, nor were there radio broadcasts.

Neither side was innocent in causing the Palestinian refugee issue.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jan/14/israel


Furthermore, anyone who thinks that 4 million Palestinians can just go to Israel, become full fledged citizens and there would not be immediate and immense problems is just fooling themselves.



Best solution? Financial compensation, by Israel, for Palestinians who were forced to leave by Israeli forces in 1947-48. Additionally, Arab countries would give all 'refugees' immediate and full citizenship in their countries. Finally, Arab countries would in turn financially compensate jews who were forced to leave their countries after Israel declared its independence.

[Shaktimaan]

77. Oh really?

A state that is unfriendly to muslims is a state that is in parity with states that are unfriendly to jews.

So a state that committed ethnic cleansing at its inception 65 years ago, but now ensures equal rights under the law and freedom of religion for all is in parity with states that execute Jews who dare practice their religion there openly?

Both Nazi Germany and 19th century Morocco were "unfriendly to Jews." Would you argue that parity exists between them as well?

This line of reasoning is somewhat ridiculous, even for you.

[King_David]

6. Those countries used to extend that ban to all Jews

Was what BDS does now when they boycott Jews , such as they did with the reggae singer - wouldn't allow him to perform because he was an American Jew but they had no problems with homophobic gay hating bigots performing at the same concert.

[King_David]

7. Recently Trump was accused of being a bigot antisemite

Mondoweiss came to Trumps defense and offered Trump support....

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/trump-wasnt-semitic

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. You must be reeeeeeeeeely nervous, dave.

It must suck losing ground to noble BDS, and secretly acknowledging that Mondoweiss posts the truth that hasbarists hate to read.

[azurnoir]

9. Bernie Sanders receives praise in the article

Finally, let’s be clear. The vast differences in wealth in our country go well beyond the situation of one ethnic religious group. As the most eloquent advocate for equality in our society Bernie Sanders said the other day, the 20 wealthiest people in America make as much money as the lowest 150 million. That unfairness is undermining people’s personal freedom, Sanders says angrily. And it’s not a Jewish problem, it’s the problem inherent in late capitalism. And many Jews (including Bernie) are among those working against that unfairness.

- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/trump-wasnt-semitic#sthash.hFBkSYn9.dpuf

BTW the Republican Jewish Coalition applauded Trump who knows maybe they were just being polite however it was a Salon article not the Jewish group Trump was speaking to that said he was antisemitic

[King_David]

10. Mondoweiss

Bernie Sanders is ‘radical’ on economic policy but a pussycat for Israel - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/sanders-economic-pussycat#sthash.QUpYBvrs.dpuf

Coulter’s point is that Republicans pander on Israel to win donors, not voters - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/republicans-donors-coulters#sthash.d1URuLGb.dpuf

Trump wasn’t anti-Semitic

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/trump-wasnt-semitic

Sanders is leftwing on economic issues, but sees Israel as up against ISIS US Politics - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/sanders-leftwing-economic#sthash.S70gXsec.dpuf



Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq war but he defended Israel's actions against Gaza last summer against his own angry leftwing base in Vermont, some of whom he told to "Shut up"
Sanders is leftwing on economic issues, but sees Israel as up against ISIS

mondoweiss.net

[azurnoir]

28. I addressed all of those in the post you're replying to

[King_David]

11. Here's a good article on the topic:

Mondoweiss & Is Anti-Semitism Dead?


Lately I have been struck by the raw anti-semitism evinced on anti-Israel websites (most egregious example, Mondoweiss). http://mondoweiss.net/

There is nothing novel about it. It’s not “the new anti-semitism” that the Anti-Defamation League likes to talk about. But the old kind, masquerading as anti-Zionism but manifesting itself as support or, at least, sympathy for every group or individual hostile to Jews: from Pat Buchanan to Hizbullah.






http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2014/03/16/is-anti-semitism-dead/

(sympathy for every group or individual hostile to Jews: from Pat Buchanan to Hizbullah.)One could now add to that group Anne Coulter and Donald Trump...

[azurnoir]

12. you keep posting the same Tikkun link as though it's new the one Rabbi Lerner refuted

so once again Rabbi Lerner's reply

March 16, 2014 at 10:48 am
I’ve always been thrilled to have MJ Rosenberg as one of our bloggers. But I have to strongly object to calling Mondoweiss Anti-Semitic. I do believe that their constant criticism of Israel is unfair, one-sided, and shows none of the compassion that we progressives ought to be showing to those with whom we disagree. I do often disagree with articles that are published on that site (but then again, I often disagree with articles published on this Tikkun Daily blog, and I’m the editor (who believes in free speech). Yet I think it is a disservice to the term ‘anti-Semitism” to use it as equivalent to having unfair and excessive criticism of Israel. The term means “hating Jews and wishing them ill,” and I don’t believe that the editors at Mondoweiss fit that description. Nor do I think it appropriate for our Tikkun Daily blog to be a place where we throw that term around except where it applies–to groups that do in fact hate Jews and wish Jews ill. There are such groups, and they have been popping up all over Europe once again and most recently in the Ukraine. So I want to apologize to Mondoweiss for this article and urge all who use this site to avoid those kinds of accusations unless they are backed up with detailed specific examples that prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. –Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor, Tikkun

http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2014/03/16/is-anti-semitism-dead/

how long do you wish to continue this?

[King_David]

17. Exposing Antisemitism? Same as exposing homophobia....

Forever ....every single day.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

23. Have you ever lifted a finger to expose corrupt zionism, dave?

Ever?

[King_David]

27. Could you please stop with the stalking ??,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=113572

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. Could you please stop with the untruths?

This is a message board, and if you post something then I am within my right to post as well.

Perhaps you should figure out what stalking really means first instead of accusing others of it.

[Shaktimaan]

78. Yeah Dave...

Have you bothered to complete your expose on the corruption that exists within the Zionist machine?

For example, do people even know that Israel? Probably not!!!

[King_David]

79. Yep

It's not easy .

[azurnoir]

29. except Rabbi Lerner didn't feel that MondoWeiss is antisemitic

[6chars]

32. Except Netanyahu basically turned Trump away

or are you saying Netanyahu is to the left of the Israeli mainstream ?

[shira]

33. Netanyahu is to the Left of the entire BDS antiZionist movement.

None of them advocate for Palestinian women, gays, or children - or for any liberal causes within Palestine. When they don't support Hamas, they're at least sympathetic to those fascist psychopaths.

Bibi's to the Left of all of them.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

37. Only a moron would believe that Netanbooboo is to the left of anything.

Nutty realizes that Trump is too much of an asshole and it will give him the heat he does not want.

If Trump becomes POTUS, in so bizzaro world scenario, then I'm sure that Nutty and the tRump would get along like brothers.

[shira]

46. Neither Netanyahu or Israel bans Muslim immigration.

And to remind you RDO,

We already established Netanyahu is to the Left of anti-Zionist BDS-holes who never advocate for any liberal or progressive values or rights within Gaza or the W.Bank (thereby siding with fascist oppressors who deny them their rights - Hamas and the PA). There are no anti-Zionist BDS-hole leaders who do NOT defend, support, or are sympathetic to the genocidal Jew-hating psychopaths of Hamas.

Name one well known anti-Zionist BDS-hole to the Left of Netanyahu.

Just one if you can...

I know and you know that you can't.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. You've established nothing credible.

Perhaos some day...

[shira]

50. Like I wrote, I know & you know you can't name even 1 well known anti-Zio BDS-hole.....

....to the left of Bibi.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

51. Word salad? No thanks. I'm full.

[shira]

52. Pretty sad you can't name any well known BDS'ers to the Left of Bibi. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

57. ...

Whatever you say.

[azurnoir]

41. trump canceled the trip

Facing a backlash over his meeting with Trump, Netanyahu's office on Wednesday issued a statement saying the prime minister "rejects" his remarks on Muslims, and that their planned encounter was simply in line with an established practice of meeting visiting US presidential candidates.

Trump explained his decision saying he did not want to put "pressure" on Netanyahu.

"I have decided to postpone my trip to Israel and to schedule my meeting with @Netanyahu at a later date after I become president of the US," he tweeted.

Speaking later on Fox News, Trump said: "I didn't want to put him under pressure."

Recalling he had once campaigned in support of Netanyahu, Trump insisted he had "a lot of friends from Israel and a tremendous amount of support from the people of Israel."

http://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-postponing-trip-israel-003152858.html

[shira]

45. Trump is no more racist than any anti-Zionist BDS-hole...

...who is more sympathetic to Palestinian terrorists who murder Jews than any Jewish victim they kill.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

49. If you say so...

Sherlock you're not.

[shira]

53. I do say so - and it's indisputable as evidenced by your response. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

58. Whatever you say...

Perhaps if I found you to be a credible source I might take note of your reply, but your history is full of dubious acts.

[Scootaloo]

76. Yargargarbleyarghargh!

[nilesobek]

55. Trump got faked to his left flank.

Trump will get schooled by someone who was in the Army and has a better education. Trump can site deferments.

[Agnosticsherbet]

59. Trump is an anti-semite as well as a follower of other forms of racism.

So, yes, he is worse.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

60. eDid you read the article, or are you just reacting?

[Agnosticsherbet]

61. No, I have been following with the biggoted anti-semite racist has done.

It is not a reach.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

62. Assumptions are not a reach for those

who are uncurious or incapable of seeing the big picture.

[Shaktimaan]

70. This isn't remotely true, however.

Trump called to ban Muslims from entering the United States. In Israel, there is already a law banning Muslims from immigrating — the “Law of Return” which gives that right to Jews alone.

That simply isn't true. In fact, later in the article she criticizes Israel for their policy of banning the Palestinian spouses of Arab-Israelis from immigrating. (I'm in no way defending this law here.) Of course, this law is itself a recent and temporary policy that only applies to spouses from Palestine. Israel still extends immigration to Muslim spouses from any Arab nation that is not engaged in an active conflict with Israel; a policy, it is worth noting, is seldom reciprocated.

The Anti-Defamation League on Monday called Trump’s plan to “bar people from entry to the United States based on their religion” is “deeply offensive and runs contrary to our nation’s deepest values.” Has the ADL ever spoken out against Israel’s Jewish-only immigration law and discriminatory border control policies?

No, because Israel does not have a Jewish-only immigration policy.

Interestingly, there is a widespread ban on granting citizenship to Palestinians in the ARAB world, (with the exception of Jordan.) A ban that applies not just to Palestinian refugees but extends to anyone of Palestinian heritage, including those who were born in the countries in question.