On Israel and Palestine

[elleng]

by M. Cherif Bassiouni

At the risk of over-simplification, the conflict can be summed up in the following formulation: two groups of people—related by race, ancestry, belief, and culture—find themselves competing over the same territory and are driven by different nationalistic and religious goals.

For those on both sides who are willing to share the land and accept the concept of two states living in peace with each other, conflict is not inevitable. For them the possibility of peace and reconciliation is not hopeless. However, for those who seek exclusive control over land, the conflict is intractable and peace only attainable when one side triumphs over the other. Because the forces of division are stronger than those of rapprochement, they represent the more visible aspect of the conflict. These forces of division have so far successfully managed to thwart peace efforts through their strategies of polarisation and radicalisation.

[delrem]

1. I think land, ownership of land, is of central importance in certain Holy texts.

How does one "compromise" with a Holy text?

Why is it righteous for those who raise the banner of those Holy texts to annex land from indigenous people anywhere, for the exclusive use of the Holy tribe that Believes in those Holy texts?

[Dick Dastardly]

2. I don't understand what you are trying to say which makes it hard to comment accurately.

Please explain who and what you are talking about to avert any misunderstanding of your comment?
Thanks

[delrem]

3. Mr. Dastardly, sir.

A short time ago you said I was full of shit, a know-nothing, for claiming that there was a distinction between Israeli national and Israeli citizen. When I responded with a well-rounded collection of links and quotes from Israeli basic law and Israeli precedent sanctioned by the Israeli supreme court, you failed to respond.

You weren't the only one who failed to respond, since there was another calling me ignorant for citing the distinction and who also failed to respond.

That is a modus-operandi, and it isn't a noble one. I don't get sucked in twice by people who play that game.

[King_David]

4. What your private 'tiff' got to do with this thread ? nt

[delrem]

5. I can't explain until ...

I can't explain until you understand that "tiffs" conducted 100% on a public form aren't "private".

Once you understand that, you might notice a *coincidence* between the distinction national/citizen in Israeli law and the term 'land ownership' in Israeli law, and Israel's approach to matters of ownership and/or rights to land.

You know all this and you know the subject is complicated, King_David. You know hasbara depends on that kind of complication.

[King_David]

6. No clue what your trying to say there ,

I tried to understand what was written,but

I can't make any sense of it.

For example WTF does this sentence mean?

" You know hasbara depends on that kind of complication"

Could you try rewrite your post so that it is easier for all of us to understand?

[oberliner]

7. This once great forum appears to be in its death throes

Sad to see.

[delrem]

8. I'm working on it, oberliner, but it's hard to meet shira's standards.

Of course there's no question that *you* understand that there's a distinction between the terms 'national' and 'citizen' in the Hebrew language. Right? So it must have been amusing when Dastardly et al accused me of ignorance for making the distinction - after all, I don't meet your standards, and Dastardly et al were conflating the distinction to terminate a discussion by introducing semantic double-speak coupled with a cheap shot at me, so it makes perfect sense.... ??? well, maybe to a hasbarist.

I feel so LOW, obi, for not meeting the standards of you, King_David, Mosby, Pelsar, Shaktimaan, shira, and the good old bunch tracing back to the old days when terms like 'hasbera' were verboten.

[oberliner]

9. Just saying that isn't a lot going on here in terms of posts and discussions

I wasn't meaning to comment on the content of what you were going back and forth about.

[delrem]

10. I'm sure you have the best intentions, oberliner.

However, in this particular exchange you responded to a "raspberry" thrown at me by your treasured colleague, King_David, and you didn't show any appreciation for the particular circumstance, that I was responding to a person with whom I've been corresponding with.

The"raspberry" was to sneer at me for bringing up earlier correspondences with "Dick Dastardly" (Carlos Danger?) - who like the hit-and-runner that he is, has once again vacated the scene.

I don't want to point out all the dots by which a picture is drawn, but this is sure:
I know just from my short acquaintance with this list that hasbara trolls never recognize the distinction national/citizen in Israeli law, although this distinction in law is strictly definitive of the state of Israel. That's one way I identify hasbara trolls.

[oberliner]

11. Thanks I appreciate that

I honestly just appended my remarks to the last post on the most recent thread I saw.

There is no sneer meant at you at all. In fact, I think I have mentioned previously that I am glad you are posting here.

I do disagree that there are any "hasbara trolls" posting on this board though.

There really are only about a dozen or so regular posters (if that) - all of whom pretty much believe what they are posting and are not here to troll.

[delrem]

12. OK, "hasbara trolls" is out of line.

Last edited Mon Sep 16, 2013, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

eta:
Perhaps "imposters?"
People who feign ignorance to regain some awkward sort of rhetorical balance?
I do know that this ignorance isn't real, oberliner, so when it's thrown at me I kinda figure it's from the nether reaches.

[Scootaloo]

29. Oberliner, the condition of discussion in this forum seems a great concern to you...

Maybe you'll want to start speaking up to the people who are trying to string discussion of the subject itself up by a lamppost, hmm? I know, this is probably against some sort of hasbara by-law you follow or the like, I don't get the quarterly handbook, so I couldn't say for sure. But there are those of us who would love to have adult discussions, but keep finding our feet stuck in a sucking mire of stupid fascist assholes.

And speaking for myself, I respond very poorly to stupid fascist assholes

[oberliner]

30. "this is probably against some sort of hasbara by-law you follow or the like"

I don't really understand what comments like that are supposed to mean.

[Scootaloo]

31. That's me trying to figure out why you never challenge any Zionist posters here

I mean I don't want yo just come out and knock you in the nose by calling you a spineless intellectual coward, or perhaps a supporter of the bullshit and debate-strangling rhetoric they hinge upon. It would seem a little counter-productive.

So my best guess is some sort of unwritten (?) rule in operation there, sorta like Ronald reagan's eleventh commandment or whatever.

[oberliner]

32. Very strange

I still can't tell if you actually believe what you are saying or if you are just trying to be funny (or both).

[King_David]

33. By that you mean anyone who disagrees with you?

And since you tell us there's no such thing as a liberal Zionist it's basically the entire Democratic Party reps -senators-pouts who disagree with you... On DU a board with a mission to boost and support such.

Are we all "stupid fascist assholes "?

Interesting.

[Scootaloo]

34. No, I mean stupid fascist assholes

You know, like people who mutilate another person's words to demand absolute lockstep marching with The Party, even though their claims for such a demand are demonstrably ignorant.

[King_David]

36. Now there's 2 bizzarrio posters here on IP

Your post is so angry and hostile , something bothering you or need a time out.

[Scootaloo]

39. Not angry or hostile at all

I'm simply explaining to Oberliner that I respond poorly to stupid fascist assholes.

It's just a little ironic that, when you took exception to this simple and perfectly understandable statment, you very ignorantly attributed a political philosophy to the Democratic party and all but demanded I adhere to that philosophy because of that party.

I don't expect you to see the irony there, of course, so don't worry if you "don't get it."

[King_David]

40. Thanks

(I am not hostile to you cos I actually enjoy)

[Shaktimaan]

13. Verbose

To clarify though. All israeli citizens are subject to the same laws/rules WRT land ownership, buying, renting and leasing real estate. There aren't different laws for different ethnicities or anything. Discriminating on the basis of race, religion or nationality is very much against israeli law.

Clear?

[Scootaloo]

35. "Discriminating on the basis of race, religion or nationality is very much against israeli law."

I'm sure it is.

Here in Washington state, it's illegal to walk around in public if you have a cold. No, really, RCW 70.54.050. Going out in public with any communicable disease is a misdemeanor offense. By Mississippi statute 97-29-1, still on the books, it's against the law for an unwed couple to have sex, punishable by a $500 fine and five months in prison.

You can of course guess that the Seattle Police Department isn't going to cite me, though, if they see me sniffling when I go to the store. And Mississippi, backwards as it is, is not packing its prisons full of unmarried lovers.

What I'm getting at is that just because there are legal statutes against something, does not necessarily mean those statutes are enforced - or even, that they are enforced arbitrarily (Say an occupy protest is busted in Tacoma, the Pierce county Sherrif's department could tack 'public illness' fines onto the people in addition to whatever other charges they want to apply.)

Now, from some articles I've read, the illegality of denying rent based on ethnicity doesn't really get applied. And from reading that article, it looks intentional, rather than just "getting away with it."

Last week the Zakais' legal struggle looked like it had run out of steam. The supreme court told the two families the Tarabins should submit to a vetting committee of local officials to assess their suitability - a requirement that has never been made before by the Negev community in the case of a family seeking to rent a home. "The decision of the committee is a foregone conclusion," Mr Tarabin said.

Can you tell me how many of these 18 rabbis were arrested for breaking the law?

Maybe you can shed some light on this, Shaktimaan. Can you give us a couple examples of violators of this law being arrested, charged, and convicted? Beyond the house arrest sentence of those 14 "price tag" kids last week?

[Shaktimaan]

37. I did not say discrimination vanished.

Racism exists in Israel. As seen in these two links. But there are equal rights under the law, regardless of the fact that there are racists that will try and defy it

Now, from some articles I've read, the illegality of denying rent based on ethnicity doesn't really get applied.

Really? Articles you've read, hm? Oh like the one you linked to above that ended with the Arabs and Jews going to court, the Jews losing, and the Arabs moving in? Is that the same article that you're trying to use as an example of how the law "doesn't really get applied?"

Because that's a very bad example to bolster your case. In fact it is the opposite of what you're trying to prove. Basically in your key example of how the law isn't equal, the Arabs win in court and are allowed to move where they wanted.

And from reading that article, it looks intentional, rather than just "getting away with it."

You've lost me here. You mean that the racism seems intentional? Of course it was intentional, who is ever accidentally discriminatory? They didn't want the Arabs moving in. But who is "getting away with it?" The Jewish landlords lost their case and the Arab family moved in.

It's amazing to me that you read that article yet seem oblivious of that critical fact. They won.

By the way you DO know the difference between a civil and criminal case, right? Winning means they get to move in, not that their landlords get sent to prison, right?

Can you tell me how many of these 18 rabbis were arrested for breaking the law?

Good question. Can you tell me which ones broke any laws first? You know Israel has Freedom of Speech, right? Do you think that equal rights means that everyone who then promotes racism/discrimination can be arrested for it?!

ARE YOU INSANE?!?!

At the end of that link the police said that they had not yet had any complaints of actual discrimination.

Can you give us a couple examples of violators of this law being arrested, charged, and convicted?

Convicted of what?! Discrimination is not a criminal offense. Not in Israel. Not in America. Wait... Do you think racist people in America who commit racial discrimination go to jail? You do, don't you? "Call the cops, this guy said he's not hiring blacks!"

Believe me, I'd love to "shed some light on this" for you. And lord knows, I tried. But your basic concept of how the world works is hampered by your insistence that only YOU know what's going on. Only YOU know the truth about Zionism, YOU, somehow, consider yourself qualified to critique books written by PhDs on subjects you've never even read a magazine article on. You assume you know everything, while everyone who disagrees must be dumb. You are so sure that your viewpoint is right it somehow actually distorts your ability to absorb anything that refutes it. It's fucking weird!

You're posting articles here as evidence for your argument. You even said you read it! Yet somehow your brain processed the words on that page and came away with the idea that it reinforced your ideology. When it said the opposite.

If you want me to shed some light, here's the best I can do... You like simplistic dogma, all Zionists are racist, etc. OK, whenever anyone tells you that "all of this" are always "like that", they are wrong! The world is entirely gray. No black. No white. So shit you like to insist I believe, "Israel is perfect. They are superior." I never say stuff like that because it's untrue. All Palestinians are not victims. Nor are they all terrorists. No one thinks like that but you. So stop. Because it's dumb. And it's prejudicial.

There's my light. I suggest you look at it.

[Scootaloo]

38. Actually, thank you, and now I feel dumb

I had not noticed the page 2 link.

Derp.


Now, for the rest of your post, can you tell me how you reconcile this statement from your prior post:

Discriminating on the basis of race, religion or nationality is very much against israeli law.

With your statement from this post:

Discrimination is not a criminal offense. Not in Israel.

'Cause it seems to me that both can't be true at the same time. I admit a lack of familiarity - in Israel, is there a difference between something being against the law, and being a criminal offense? 'Cause in most nations, there isn't.

Further, you point out that discrimination in Israel hasn't ended. Of course it hasn't, no nation is a utopia like that. Surely this discrimination is expressed through, uh, discrimination, correct? And I have no doubt that whether or not your attempt to talk out both sides of our mouth was a slip or not, some of that discrimination takes the form of undeniably criminal acts (such as the vandalism and arson described in that first article.) I was simply hoping you could show us how these people are arrested, tried, and convicted. I'm sure you can do that, right?

You like simplistic dogma, all Zionists are racist, etc. OK, whenever anyone tells you that "all of this" are always "like that", they are wrong!

So if someone were to tell me, "all communists are adherents of the idea that the best society is a stateless, moneyless, classless social order" I should pull a Phoenix Wright, leap from my seat, and shout "OBJECTION!"

No.

I see that you're tossing "Israeli" and "Palestinian" in there as if "Zionist" were somehow notions on par with them. Your fellow poster King_David tries to make Jews and Zionism synonymous in the same way. This is of course, wrong. Palestinian, Israeli, Jew, Arab, these are inherited identities. Many varied people with many varied perspectives and ideas hold these identities, and retain them through their lives. A person cannot just stop being an Arab one day and decide to be a Zapotec, instead. National citizenship changes more easily but national identity does not - thus why we have Israeli-Americans and Palestinian Italians, and so on.

On the other hand, we have political philosophies that are very mutable and disposable - they're ideas, and very often rather bad ideas at that (looking at you, Objectivism.) They're not identities. Certainly not inherited ones.

By definition, people who claim to hold political ideologies do so because that's what they believe in. They hold a common suite of basic beliefs. Else they would not lay claim to that philosophy. To go "All socialists believe in this, that, and the other" is not prejudicial, Shaktimaan. As socialists, they certainly do believe such things, because if they didn't they wouldn't be socialists.

[Shaktimaan]

41. sure

'Cause it seems to me that both can't be true at the same time. I admit a lack of familiarity - in Israel, is there a difference between something being against the law, and being a criminal offense? 'Cause in most nations, there isn't.

Every state differentiates between civil and criminal codes of law. You've heard of getting sued? Well, that's the civil version of being arrested and put on trial except if you lose, you lose money not freedom.

some of that discrimination takes the form of undeniably criminal acts (such as the vandalism and arson described in that first article.) I was simply hoping you could show us how these people are arrested, tried, and convicted. I'm sure you can do that, right?

Well, vandalism and arson would be crimes entirely separate from discrimination. They're violent crimes. I don't know what you're referring to re: arson and vandalism here, but I kinda suspect you're referring to price tag reprisals, which are in the territories and target non-Israelis. I'm not condoning them, rather agreeing that THAT shit is totally in no way within the scope of what I'm discussing here. West Bank attacks have been tolerated by the IDF, very unfairly, but that's finally now starting to change as we're seeing.

Otherwise if you point me to something specific I can check, but I can't think of any serious crimes committed by Israeli Jews against Israeli non-Jew that I recall lately. Rest assured, there's plenty of discrimination that goes unchecked, (think of black male incarceration rates vs whites in the US, just not as bad.) But Jews really do get convicted in Israel, even if they kill an Arab. I just don't think Jews killing Arabs happens much really within Israel.

They hold a common suite of basic beliefs. Else they would not lay claim to that philosophy. To go "All socialists believe in this, that, and the other" is not prejudicial, Shaktimaan. As socialists, they certainly do believe such things, because if they didn't they wouldn't be socialists.

Socialism, like Zionism is a huge tent. If you really want to make statements that apply to the entirety they have to then actually apply to the entirety. The problem with your statements is that they weren't in any way universal or even widespread Zionist beliefs. If you want to make a single statement that applies to every Zionist it is this: "Zionists support the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state in Palestine." (Just to be clear, Palestine in this sense refers to the geographical region.) Anything else and you're basically saying things that aren't true for all Zionists.

For example, most Zionists I know are not racist. Now, you seem to think that unless I support your specific narrow ideological view of what's ethical regarding Palestine, then I am being racist. This is not really true. We just disagree. If you think that supporting Israel's existence is the equivalent of supporting every action that has ever been taken by Israel or in its name, over the past 60 years, then you're making expectations that do not exist in reality. Supporting America does not mean supporting Mai Lai just as I can be Zionist while disagreeing with any number of Israeli policies.

Now let me ask you something. You seem to have no issue with focusing so closely on whether Israeli Jewish vandals and arsonists are pressed with charges, or whether any examples exist of Palestinians being successfully discriminated against in the housing market. Which is fine. Me too. But then when it comes to the Palestinians you have an entirely different standard. In the 1930s when Jewish refugees were purchasing and settling on land in Palestine, in adherence with all the treaties, laws and agreements of that time, they were frequently attacked by Palestinian militants. You not only reject their right to equal rights under the law but actually defend acts of murder, expulsion and ethnic cleansing perpetrated against them.

How do you justify that stark difference?

[Scootaloo]

42. Ah, but here's the rub...

If you want to make a single statement that applies to every Zionist it is this: "Zionists support the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state in Palestine."

Thing is, that's what I say. I just happen to expound on what that means and entails, something Zionists don't seem to give a lot of thought or energy to.

Supporting America does not mean supporting Mai Lai just as I can be Zionist while disagreeing with any number of Israeli policies.

Unspecified "support" for a nation does in fact carry the burden of support for whatever shit that nation does, Shaktimaan. I know that jingoistic nationalist chest-thumping tends to mute the thinking process, but next time you want to engage, try this - state what about Israel you support, and if possible, why you support it. Without doing so, you're just the Israeli version of this twit:


Also, if there is a discussion of the events of Mai Lai going on, and someone interrupts to announce that they "support America" well, a reasoned inference can be made about their position on the subject at hand. More so if the person sticks around to call the others in the discussion "America-haters" and tries to argue the necessity of the entire Vietnam War.

Now let me ask you something. You seem to have no issue with focusing so closely on whether Israeli Jewish vandals and arsonists are pressed with charges, or whether any examples exist of Palestinians being successfully discriminated against in the housing market.

Well, you're the one who claimed that this absolutely always never ever happens because it's illegal in Israel - well. Before you declared that it wasn't illegal in Israel, at any rate. I rather figured that Israeli discrimination agaisnt Arabs in housing was sort fo the topic of this subthread. I guess, much as with the legality of discrimination in Israel, it is when you want it to be, and isn't when you don't want it to be.

But then when it comes to the Palestinians you have an entirely different standard. In the 1930s when Jewish refugees were purchasing and settling on land in Palestine, in adherence with all the treaties, laws and agreements of that time, they were frequently attacked by Palestinian militants. You not only reject their right to equal rights under the law but actually defend acts of murder, expulsion and ethnic cleansing perpetrated against them.

That must be why I fully support the right of Jews expelled from their homes in '48 and prior to reclaim those properties or, if unable to do that, receive full, inflation-adjusted compensation for the lost property.

Sorry Shaktimaan, but Shira's already beaten you to this silly attempt... multiple times (bless her heart, I don't think her memory's all that great.)

I would suggest reading my posts, instead of arguing against a script you downloaded from masada2000.

[Shaktimaan]

43. Really?

Thing is, that's what I say. I just happen to expound on what that means and entails, something Zionists don't seem to give a lot of thought or energy to.

But do you though? I MIGHT be wrong about this but I suspect you aren't actually this dumb or this bigoted, are you? No one is really as outright anti-Semitic as you act AND as dumb as you're pretending, who then chooses DU/IP over mondoweiss.

Actually it doesn't matter. You're either unaware and unable to learn it anyway, or you don't care. I mean, it's obvious now I guess.

Whatever. But plenty of people here participate in meaningful debate over tough subjects that have no "right" answers. You didn't have to make it into a parody.

At this point it's obvious that you're either trolling or you are one of the least educated people on the planet. But you're not. Even my fucking cat knows the difference between civil and criminal and somehow you've gotten confused about it all over again not one notch lower.

Even a sea cucumber would find his intellect offended by your refusal to retain this, one, single fact that anyone who has ever seen a Law and Order knows.

So. Congratulations. You got me. I wasted hours of time trying to explain something I find important to a guy who was making fun of me the whole time.

Fuck it. You win. I finally get it, I'm the dumb one. Good job.

This was never welcome back kotter, and I have paid work that I've been procrastinating on starting all weekend. Congratulations for wasting my time. You taught me a valuable lesson.

[Scootaloo]

47. See, there you go again with it...

But do you though? I MIGHT be wrong about this but I suspect you aren't actually this dumb or this bigoted, are you? No one is really as outright anti-Semitic as you act AND as dumb as you're pretending, who then chooses DU/IP over mondoweiss.

A trend of yours I've noticed, Shaktimaan - not unique to you, of course, but let's keep it simple. When you're presented with a problem that you can't answer just by copy-pasting someone else's thoughts and ideas, you simply act like a piqued seven year old, yell that someone is an "antisemite" and stomp off in a huff.

If you want to call someone else dumb, you're going to have to figure out how to start firing your own synapses, first. Right now all you've got is a very wordy way of saying exactly two things:
1) Israel is always right!
and
2) You're an antisemite!

Frankly if those two didn't rhyme, I doubt you could manage that much.

At this point it's obvious that you're either trolling or you are one of the least educated people on the planet. But you're not. Even my fucking cat knows the difference between civil and criminal and somehow you've gotten confused about it all over again not one notch lower.

I'm not confused at all. I simply see that you are a bullshit artist conducting a spin performance, trying to have multiple sides of the argument all at the same time. I understand the difference between civil and criminal infractions easily enough; I also understand that you're making an effort to confuse the issue, so you can put on this put-upon, whining, sniveling, stomping performance post here.

You tel Delrem that "discrimination is very much illegal in Israel." well, okay? How much is "very much?" I simply wanted you to show me how much it is illegal in Israel, with something more concrete than "it just is; a lot!" Caught like a ferret in a snare, you squirm and writhe around, attempt to evade the simple request, and make a point that it's not a criminal offense. Oh, okay, so I suppose a parking violation, or not paying the water bill are also things you would characterize as "very much illegal"?

It's pretty obvious that you're simply trying to handwave away the issue of discrimination in Israel, are unable to provide any examples of why Israel's anti-discrimination laws are so awesome and effective, and instead content yourself with whining when I mock you for talking out both ends of your body cavity.

All I wanted was for you to show me some examples of Israel's awesome record on being anti-discriminatory. It wouldn't have been too hard, but you can't fucking do it. I actually wonder at this, I imagine that there are plenty of bulleted lists for you to copy and paste, no thinking required on your part.

I suppose that this is because doing so would mean you have ot actually realize the reality of discrimination in Israel. Yes, I know that you say "Israel is not free of discrimination" but frankly there's a difference between just being aware of a fact, and knowing the fact. You can admit that there is discrimination in Israel when your own ass is in some rapidly-warming water, but this evidently doesn't extend towards citing actual examples of it. Even if doing so ends up making Israel look good.

What a fucking sycophant.

Even a sea cucumber would find his intellect offended by your refusal to retain this, one, single fact that anyone who has ever seen a Law and Order knows.

A sea cucumber? That was kinda witty. Did your cat write it?

So. Congratulations. You got me. I wasted hours of time trying to explain something I find important to a guy who was making fun of me the whole time.

I actually think you spent more time on this post, than all your others on this thread combined. I mean you called me an antisemite in the first salvo, so thinking up all these other insults must have been pretty time-consuming for you.

It wasn't wasted effort, by the way - unless, perhaps, you expected me to fall to my knees and yell, "Shaktimaan! You have shown me the light!" or something like that.

But since you brought it up, you're right, I don't take you very seriously. I don't take white nationalists very seriously, either.

See, when I run across someone who tells me that there ought to be a state, for one particular race, religion, or ethnic group, I begin to doubt that person's mental state. It's iffy, I mean, if someone wants to tell me that Punjabis ought to form a Punjab state in Punjab, I have serious questions, but maybe they have serious answers, right?

When they continue by asserting this dream-state of theirs must be established on top of someone else, no matter the cost, I realize they're just really fucking dumb. Establishing a Punjabi state on top of California just makes no damn sense at all.

And when they fail to understand the obvious problems of their grand idea, and simply scream about how racist I am for not supporting their crackpot ideology, I come to a conclusion - the only way this person could contribute to the world is if they threw themselves at a starving tiger.

Just because you espouse establishing a Jewish state on top of Arabs, rather than establishing a white state on top of blacks, or a Turkic state on top of Greeks, or a Japanese state on top of Manchurians, doesn't spare you from my judgement that your true calling in this world is sustenance for needy felines.

Now, to your credit, there are certainly worse examples of your particular philosophy running around here. You provide discussable content, and lack the batshit crazy of... other posters. I think you're at least sincere in your beliefs, as opposed to at least two others, for whom Israel seems to be little more than a revenge fantasy come to life.

This was never welcome back kotter, and I have paid work that I've been procrastinating on starting all weekend. Congratulations for wasting my time. You taught me a valuable lesson.

I don't get the Welcome Back Kotter reference.

Now, be honest. Are you really going to try to blames someone else for your decision to spend time doing this? I mean really, arguing about Israel / Palestine on the internet. I really wonder what sort of results you were hoping for, Shaktimaan, because my findings is that it's impossible to discuss hamburgers on the internet and reach a productive consensus. We've got a situation that's been going, unresolved, for over sixty years, and what, you think you'll resolve it by spending a day posting here?

Don't blame me for your procrastination, man.

[Shaktimaan]

50. If you're curious...

But since you brought it up, you're right, I don't take you very seriously. I don't take white nationalists very seriously, either.

See here, where you compare Jewish Nationalism, with white nationalism? It's comments like that which mark you as anti-semitic.
If you're confused as to why it's because Jews really are an actual nation of people, and belonging doesn't really mean one is a supremacist in any way. Nor does our exercising self-determination mirror white supremacy.

I don't see why you draw a distinction between a Muslim Arab emigrating from Egypt to Palestine versus a Jewish Egyptian doing the same, but you clearly do, and it's really racist. It has nothing to do with your criticisms of Israel. Really. You're not exactly fostering any arguments that stump or scare anyone here, I'm sorry. It's not because we are intimidated by your reasoning. It's because you say racist things.

[Scootaloo]

52. Glad to see you came back, Shaktimaan

Yes, I compare Jewish Nationalism with White Nationalism. And hate to burst your bubble, but a white nationalist will tell me that white people are an actual nation of people as well, and that establishing a white state on top of someone else is also an exercise of self-determination. Also like you, they'll call me a racist (or more accurately a "race-traitor&quot when I disagree with 'em. I know, because I've done it. You are making no argument that they do not. Both you and they have nothing except special pleading, and nonsense attempts at shaming.

Let's be frank, Shaktimaan. When some dork who attributes a political philosophy to all Jews in the word, then defines all Jews by that philosophy, and finally hides behind Jews to take cover from criticism directed at him and his beliefs calls me an antisemite, I just roll my eyes. I told you I don't take you particularly seriously. This is part of why that is.

I don't see why you draw a distinction between a Muslim Arab emigrating from Egypt to Palestine versus a Jewish Egyptian doing the same, but you clearly do, and it's really racist.

Do I, now? Please proceed, governor.

[Shaktimaan]

14. That old post of yours was entirely misinformed though.

To be fair you are technically, entirely correct. A distinct difference exists in Israel between nationality and citizenship. However most people reading your post merely assumed you were using the colloquial meanings of the words, which in the US are identical. More accurately though, states are usually formed around nations, which predate modern nation-states as tribes, more or less.

That part is true. But then you took this distinction and drew wild extrapolations from it, assuming a plethora of weird discriminations that you found very unreliable links to support.

I don't know why you are so fixated on Israel's identity as an ethnic state (like most states), thinking that it somehow must be an indication of racism, supremacism and apartheid. If you wanted to find examples of racism codified into law there are far easier targets, (some of whom even oppress Palestinians, as Israel, regrettably, also does, albeit to a lesser extent and for very different reasons.)

I'd like to remind you that Israel's Declaration of Independence promises equal rights to all her citizens, regardless of nationality or religion. And while discrimination surely exists there it is an obvious result of the conflict, not a cause of it. There is a reason Israel was the sole state in Africa/Mideast to obtain a Free rating from the NGO freedom house. It's the only really, fucking, free state in the whole region.

[delrem]

15. "Arab Israeli citizens aren't Israeli nationals. Israel is a specifically Jewish state." A defense.

I wrote this over some time in notepad and it has more the character of a formal argument or exposition than a typical forum rejoiner. On the other hand I post now in reply to a person who quite evidently hasn't read my other responses in the threads that he mentions, so the task I set myself wasn't to enlighten *him*, but rather to collect some important information and put it into an order that makes seeing connections a bit easier.

The dispute:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=39719
Response to holdencaufield (Reply #3)
Mon Apr 15, 2013, 05:14 AM
delrem (862 posts)
14. Arab Israeli citizens aren't Israeli nationals. Israel is a specifically Jewish state. nt

in direct response:
holdencaufield (2,829 posts)
15. If you're going to smoke dope and post ...
... bring enough for everyone.
It's just common courtesy.

Also in direct response:
Dick Dastardly (818 posts)
25. This is false. Arab citizens are Israeli nationals.
This has been shown to you many times but you continue to repeat this nonsense.
++++++++++++++++++++

delrem April 18, 2013
In defense of the 2-part statement
Arab Israeli citizens aren't Israeli nationals. Israel is a specifically Jewish state.

1. Israel is a specifically Jewish state.

Both proof and meaning of this is laid down by Israel's high court, which hearkens
to the definition of Israel.

/begin 1/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Jewish_and_Democratic_State#Israeli_High_Court_of_Justice.27s_commentary
"Regarding the meaning of the definition of "Jewish and Democratic State" in this section of the law,
then President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Aharon Barak, wrote that a narrow interpretation should be given to it,
since it limits a basic right, in contrast to the broader interpretation that should be given to laws concerning
Human rights.

Concerning the minimal interpretation of "a Jewish State", Justice Aharon Barak ruled that:

"What, then are the 'core' characteristics shaping the minimum definition of the State of Israel as a Jewish State?
These characteristics come from the aspects of both Zionism and heritage. At their center stands the right of
every Jew to immigrate to the State of Israel, where the Jews will constitute a majority;
Hebrew is the official and principal language of the State and most of its fests and symbols reflect the
national revival of the Jewish People; The heritage of the Jewish People is a central component of its religious
and cultural legacy".
--Aharon Barak
/end 1/

2. Nationality is distinct from citizenship.

/begin 2/
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/theocracy.html
In a landmark Supreme Court decision, Justice Agranat
ruled against a man who wanted to have his nationality registration changed from "Jewish" to "Israeli" saying:
"There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people." He asserted further that "the Jewish people is composed
not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry.@ (Oscar Kraines, The Impossible Dilemma: Who is a Jew
in the State of Israel, NY: Bloch Publishing, Co., 1976, p. 67) This conception of nationality does not fit with the
conventional understanding of the term as Menachem Begin explains:

"In Western Europe or the United States, "nationality" is synonymous with "citizenship." A national of a given state is
a citizen of that state, or at least one born under its jurisdiction. In Central and Eastern Europe citizenship and nationality
are distinct. We have Israeli citizens of diverse religions. on the other hand, Jewish nationality and religion must
always go together. (In Eliezer Goldman, Religious Issues in Israel=s Political Life)"
/end 2/

3. This is important enough for the Israeli high court to be involved in judgments re. "Who is a Jew"

/begin 3/
http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Eye+on+Israel/Activities+and+Programming/Law+of+Return/20.+High+Court+ruling+in+Who+is+a+Jew+case.htm

IN THE SUPREME COURT SITTING AS HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Before the President (Justice Agranat), the Deputy President (Justice Silberg), Justices Sussman, Landau, Berinson, Witkon, Cohn, Many and Kister.
Binyamin Shalit, Petitioner, v. 1. Minister of Interior, 2. Haifa Registration Officer, Respondents (H.C. 58/58).

The High Court, by majority decision, made absolute an order nisi calling upon the Minister of the Interior and the
Haifa Registrar of Inhabitants to show cause why the petitioner's children should not be registered as being "Jewish" by
ethnic affiliation.
/end 3/

4. 'nationality' and 'citizenship' are distinct terms in Hebrew, but often presented as equivalent or the same
in translation.

/begin 4/
Jewish Nationality

http://www.hic-mena.org/documents/HC%20Israel%20mission%20ltr.pdf

The legal distinction between le’om (nationality) and ezrahut (citizenship) became most clear
in the case of George Tamarin v. the State of Israel (1970), wherein a Jewish Israeli had
petitioned to have the official registration of his nationality changed from "Jewish" to "Israeli."
The High Court denied his request as "there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish
nation...composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewry." Then
president of the High Court Justice Shimon Agranat explained that acknowledging a uniform
Israeli nationality "would negate the very foundation upon which the State of Israel was
formed."
It is incorrect to refer to a status of "Israeli nationality"; it simply does not exist.
Therefore, nationality status in Israel is not linked to residence in a territory, as is the norm in
international law. Instead, the basic theocratic preference of the Israeli legal system
establishes ethnic criteria as the grounds for enjoyment of economic, social and cultural
rights

Also see:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-there-are-no-israelis-in-the-jewish-state/18521
Why There Are no ‘Israelis’ in the Jewish State
Citizens classed as Jewish or Arab nationals
By Jonathan Cook
Global Research, April 06, 2010

Also tightly connected:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/court-rules-judaism-not-place-of-birth-is-grounds-for-israeli-citizenship-1.430676
Court rules Judaism, not place of birth, is grounds for Israeli citizenship
Israeli court denies petition by anti-coercion activist to be recognized as Israeli
without connection to Judaism, says citizenship is solely determined by law of return.
"In his ruling on Tuesday, Judge Daniel Fisch said that it was without a doubt that the petitioner,
Prof Uzzi Ornan, was born to a Jewish mother, and was therefore Jewish, which the law of return
states as the source of his citizenship."

And more recently reconfirmed:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126858#.UW9u1LUqbIo
Court Rejects Group Appeal to Be Declared "Israeli" in IDs
A group of citizens, most of them Jews, asked to have the "nationality" box in their IDs changed
from "Jewish" to "Israeli." The court refused.
First Publish: 7/15/2008

This can get very picky and mean:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israeli-investigated-on-his-jewish-status-after-haaretz-interview-1.367961
Israeli investigated on his Jewish status after Haaretz interview
Kibbutz resident Itai Bar believes a Family Affair article is to blame for his case being 'blocked'
at the population registrar office; in the article, Bar is quoted as calling himself a 'Shabbes goy.'

"Bar arrived at the population registrar office in Be'er Sheva to obtain a document he needed.
To his surprise, the clerk there told him his case was "blocked." He said that there was an alert
about my nationality, following a report."
/end 4/

5. Until recently, when the same information was encoded in numbers (easily recognized by any Israeli)
an Israeli Idenity Card openly displayed this information

/begin 5/
http://books.google.ca/books?id=_gAtsgfO6S0C&pg=PA406&lpg=PA406&dq=ezrahut+le'um&source=bl&ots=7xCgjPXxLg&sig=HCLect6RT2f4AFxM6S1M63GCoMw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bVdtUfDeNIGeiQLehIGYDA&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ezrahut%20le'um&f=false
The Identity Card of a Hebrew resident of the State of Palestine would read:
Citizenship (Exrahut/al-Jinsiyya): Palestinian
Peoplehood ('Am/al-Shaab): Palestinian-Hebrew
Nationality (Le'um/al-Qawmiyya): Hebrew
Religion (Datlal-Din): None/Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Other

The identity Card of an Arab resident of the State of Israel would read:
Citizenship (Exrahut/al-Jinsiyya): Israeli
Peoplehood ('Am/al-Shaab): Palestinian-Arab
Nationality (Le'um/al-Qawmiyya): Arab
Religion (Datlal-Din): None/Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Other

The identity Card of a Hebrew resident of the State of Israel would read:
Citizenship (Exrahut/al-Jinsiyya): Israeli
Peoplehood ('Am/al-Shaab): Palestinian-Hebrew
Nationality (Le'um/al-Qawmiyya): Hebrew
Religion (Datlal-Din): None/Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Other
/end 5/

6. The legal distinction between le’om (nationality) and ezrahut (citizenship) is ignored
by those who present Israel's Citizenship Law as a "Nationality Law". A translation that
properly recognizes this important distinction is:

/begin 6/
http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/citizenship_law.htm
The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (temporary provision) 5763 - 2003
/end 6/

7. The separation of nations in the highest law of the land, describing how the Jewish nation is superior
and state recognized and all others are subordinate nations, has immense consequences and is the foundation
for an apartheid state, prohibiting democratic redress.

/begin 7/
http://newdemocracyworld.org/old/state.htm
Section 7A(1) of the Basic Law of Israel explicitly prevents Israeli citizens - Arab or Jewish - from
using the "democratic" system of Israeli elections to challenge the inferior status of Arabs under the law;
it restricts who can run for political office with this language: "A candidates' list shall not participate
in elections to the Knesset if among its goals or deeds, either expressly or impliedly, are one of the
following: (1) The negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the State of the Jewish People. ..."
In a 1989 Israeli Supreme Court ruling (reported in the 1991 Israel Law Review, Vol. 25, p. 219, published
by the Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Justice S. Levine, speaking for the majority,
ruled that this law meant that a political party could not run candidates if it intended to achieve the
cancellation of one of the fundamental tenets of the State - namely "the existence of a Jewish majority,
the granting of preference to Jews in matters of immigration, and the existence of close and reciprocal
relations between the State and the Jews of the Diaspora."
/end 7/

8. The unequal, asymmetrical law with respect to the rights of people according as their nationality has
immense practical consequences for peoples of the subordinate nationalities.

/begin 8a/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4174616,00.html

High Court rejects petition against 'Citizenship Law'
Published: Dec 01/2012
Petition against law aimed at limiting reunification of Palestinian, Arab-Israeli families denied in 6:5 vote

The High Court of Justice on Wednesday rejected a petition against the "Citizenship Law" which aims to limit
the reunification of Palestinian and Arab-Israeli families. Six judges voted to deny the petition and five
voted to grant it.
Judges Eliezer Rivlin, Asher Grunis, Miriam Naor, Elyakim Rubinstein, Hanan Meltzer and Neal Handel ruled
that the petition must be denied. In their ruling they wrote that they recognize the right for family reunification
as derived from the right to dignity but ruled that it does not necessarily warrant implementation inside Israel.
/end 8a/

/begin 8b/
http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod2.htm#2
Basic Law: Israel Lands
Passed on July 25, 1960, by the fourth Knesset.

The basis of the law is the special relationship between the People of Israel and the Land of Israel and its redemption.
The law ensures that the state lands, which constitute about 90% of the lands in the state, should remain national property.
The law prohibits the transfer of ownership over lands owned by the state, the Development Authority or the
Jewish National Fund, either by sale or by any other means, with the exception of types of land or transactions,
that have been specified in the law.
/end 8b/

9. The People of Israel are the same as The Children of Israel.
B'nei Yisrael ("Children of Israel&quot can denote the Jewish people at any time in history.
Coupled with 8b, above, The Jewish National Fund

/begin 9/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_National_Fund
Jewish National Fund
/end 9/

10. It is important to read the report from the Levy Committee,
Report on the Legal Status of Building in Judea and Samaria,
in light of the abovemeantioned high court legal precedent and basic law.

/begin 10/
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.ca/2012/07/english-translation-of-legal-arguments.html
This gives an English translation of the legal arguments of the report itself, and its
conclusions. Note that this report never once mentions the existence of a Palestinian
people, or terms like 'West Bank', but throughout describes the territory as already
annexed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_Report
This gives the standard wiki treatment.
/end 10/

Thank you for reading this synopsis.

[Shaktimaan]

16. You want I explain?

OK. I explain.

Firstly, as I already agreed, yes, this distinction between citizenship and nationality exists in Israel. Numbers 1-3 are pretty straightforward and I don't dispute them. Israel is an ethnic state that exists as the homeland of the Jewish people. Like Japan for the Japanese.

These terms don't violate their "normal" meanings. The term "nation" exists in the Torah as the description for the Jewish people. It's just confusing in the US bc the terms are used here synonymously.

Of course the courts must be involved in defining who qualifies to be a citizen under the citizenship law. That entails them deciding who is and isn't a Jew in the legal sense. There's nothing wrong with this, but you miss a key point. The benchmark for getting immediate citizenship is NOT to prove you're a Jew. The israeli authorities use the same rules as the Nazis did to decide who to persecute. Its brilliant. The question isn't if you're Jewish or not. It's whether or not you would have been oppressed by the Germans... Aka, if you're Jewish enough to attract anti-semitism then you're Jewish enough to claim israeli protection. So anyone with a Jewish grandparent, or spouse, etc., qualifies. Again: this isn't due to ethnicity, but as a way to be sure of not excluding anyone who might be persecuted as Jewish... Which is the whole point of Israel's existence.

Therefore, nationality status in Israel is not linked to residence in a territory, as is the norm in international law. Instead, the basic theocratic preference of the Israeli legal system establishes ethnic criteria as the grounds for enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.

The above is untrue. Firstly there is rarely ever an established "norm" in international law regarding how states do anything within their borders that doesn't violate a convention. That's because the UN charter guarantees SOVEREIGNTY as it's foundational keystone right in its charter. States get to decide who is a citizen however they want. And the ways vary greatly from state to state.

Israel happens to ALWAYS give citizenship to anyone born within its borders AND anyone finding themselves living on annexed land is offered it (east Jerusalem Palestinians.) So in truth israeli citizenship can be obtained via territorial, RoR (for Jews and near-Jews), as well as by just applying for it. (For immigrants who don't qualify for RoR.)

ALL citizens are guaranteed equality under the law. So no, enjoyment of rights has nothing to do with ethnicity. All citizens have the same rights. You don't need to be Jewish to qualify. Your nationality doesn't determine your rights as a citizen. And even RoR isn't based on theocracy. The widest definition is used.

Court rules Judaism, not place of birth, is grounds for Israeli citizenship
Israeli court denies petition by anti-coercion activist to be recognized as Israeli
without connection to Judaism, says citizenship is solely determined by law of return.
"In his ruling on Tuesday, Judge Daniel Fisch said that it was without a doubt that the petitioner,
Prof Uzzi Ornan, was born to a Jewish mother, and was therefore Jewish, which the law of return
states as the source of his citizenship."

Funny! Court rules Judaism is grounds for citizenship IN THIS ONE SINGLE SPECIAL CASE! You're using a grammatical quirk of common news writing headline abbreviations to make it seem as though this was a universal ruling. LAME! DISHONEST! Also, so lame.

This case is special because the petitioner was NOT born in Israel but in Palestine pre-dating Israel's existence. So that's why he can't claim geography. He was born before Israel had borders to be born within. If he was born post-48 in Israel, then THAT'S why he'd be israeli, regardless of his ethnicity.

This can get very picky and mean:

They're picky and mean just like the INS is. That's their job. Your example was of someone who admitted to lying and perhaps being there illegally. Following up isn't mean. It's their job. Grow up.

Numbers 5-6. More or less true. There's WAY more nationalities than presented though. Remember the Druze? They get cards too.

7. The separation of nations in the highest law of the land, describing how the Jewish nation is superior
and state recognized and all others are subordinate nations, has immense consequences and is the foundation for an apartheid state, prohibiting democratic redress.

OK, this statement and most everything in the link provided is junk. Just utterly untrue, baseless garbage. The bits that happen to be technically true are misleading... ie: "Non-Jews aren't allowed to purchase land." That's true. What's left out is that Jews aren't allowed to purchase land either.

Just remember this: NOWHERE does Israel state that the Jewish nation is superior and everyone else is inferior. If you need clarification on anything else this lunatic tried to convince you of then ask me specifically. Everything I read was lies, propaganda or banality dressed up like racism. (The non-israeli Palestinians are discriminated against because they're denied equal rights! ohmygerg. Well, they aren't citizens, are they? That's true of every non-citizen to every state but their own. Non-citizens living outside the state aren't supposed to get the same rights as citizens, ANYWHERE! In this same way I'm being discriminated against by Switzerland, who didn't grant me citizenship. Except in the Palestinians' case they're in a state of conflict with Israel.) Oh, and most states have a rule preventing you from taking over with the aim of dismantling said state. That's totally normal. In America they won't even let you in if you admit to being a Nazi or Communist Party member.

8. The unequal, asymmetrical law with respect to the rights of people according as their nationality has
immense practical consequences for peoples of the subordinate nationalities.

Really? Like wha... Ohhhh, you're right! This is the one really solid example of legal discrimination. Sorta. But to be fair it doesn't prevent reunification. You and your bride can always go to Palestine. Or you can bring in someone from virtually any other state you want. See, it's not that this law discriminates against non-Jews or even Arabs. It's that Israel's been in a state of semi-war with Palestine lately and it's kind of a security thing. Which in my opinion, though totally true, is not worth the awful cost in equal rights. It's a shitty law. But it's also recent and temporary. And only discriminates against the nations who would potentially send in a bride to kill Israelis. But I'll kinda give you this one as it's so blatantly unfair. But so far it's your only bullet with gunpowder in it and it's kinda a tiny one. It only applies to brides under 25 or husbands under 35. And it's not a ban. It's just not an automatic citizenship. It has to be reviewed and every year they let in most of the applicants. And it only deals with families from states at war with Israel. It's actually kinda reasonable really.

8b: OK. So what? Any israeli citizen can live wherever he wants in Israel or the settlements. By law no one can deny you real estate because of your nationality or religion or race or whatever. You can't BUY any land because it's almost all owned by the government and they won't sell it to you, ethnicity notwithstanding.

9: Yeah... Haha, sorry! That lame attempt at demonstrating that the JNF considers all Jews the same as "the nation of Israel" won't work. Try it over at Mondoweiss, they'll buy anything anti-Zion flavored, no matter how ludicrous. Seriously everyone. Look at this!

The People of Israel are the same as The Children of Israel.
B'nei Yisrael ("Children of Israel&quot can denote the Jewish people at any time in history.
Coupled with 8b, above, The Jewish National Fund

Here's the reality. No one can buy land in Israel regardless of ethnicity. Jews don't get some special "my children!" deal like we do at adorama. That's just reality. Same laws for everyone. (For the record though that was SUPER lame! How dumb do you think we are? If anyone ever buys that BS you cooked up, sue them for stupidity.)

10: Yes, the JNF is a shitty, racist organization. They still have to obey the law and lease you property even if you're not a Jew though. The government MAKES them, and then reimburses them with an equal value of land in the middle of the desert. (You know it's a fair deal because it sucks for everyone.) Except the non-Jewish person signing the lease. Because for him, equality! Even though the JNF would rather tell him to go blow, they can't. Because equal rights. Is that reality sinking in yet, finally?

[delrem]

17. All of my links to Israel's basic laws and high court decisions are TRUE.

Your spin on them is just that, freewheeling hasbara spin.
The occupation of all Palestinian lands is TRUE. Your spin on that is freewheeling hasbara spin.
That you agree with Benny Morris, that Ben Gurion ought to have ethnically cleansed the whole of Eretz Israel,
is TRUE. That you want to spin that truth into something else accords with your method. That I reject your spin is TRUE, and always will be TRUE.
That Israel's ethnic cleansing continues in its occupied territories (always called "Judea" and "Samaria&quot is TRUE.
That this pogrom is founded on and underscored by the basic laws and decisions that I quoted (linked to) verbatim, is TRUE.

That these fundamental laws and high court decisions define Israel as a Jewish State is TRUE. That this system of racist law is perpetrated on an indigenous population is TRUE.

I'm tired of right wing deflections, right wing avoidance techniques.
Anyway, you're in bed with shira, and that says everything.

[Shaktimaan]

19. Hahaha.

The occupation of all Palestinian lands is TRUE.

Who said it wasn't?

Your spin on that is freewheeling hasbara spin.

I'm just correcting your egregious errors and childish attempts at dishonesty.

That you agree with Benny Morris, that Ben Gurion ought to have ethnically cleansed the whole of Eretz Israel, is TRUE.

I don't believe that. Neither does Benny Morris either.

That you want to spin that truth into something else accords with your method. That I reject your spin is TRUE, and always will be TRUE.

So it doesn't bother you what's factual because you've decided you'll always reject it anyway. Good idea.

That Israel's ethnic cleansing continues in its occupied territories (always called "Judea" and "Samaria&quot is TRUE.

Actually, this one is a blatant lie. Why not just accuse them if genocide while you're making shit up?

That this pogrom is founded on and underscored by the basic laws and decisions that I quoted (linked to) verbatim, is TRUE.

You actually quoted lunatics who were reciting their idea of what Israel's laws are.

That these fundamental laws and high court decisions define Israel as a Jewish State is TRUE.

So what?

That this system of racist law is perpetrated on an indigenous population is TRUE.

Can you show me some of these racist laws? Have you no shame? Accusing people of racism without basis is truly one of the lowest things a person can do. Manufacturing fake evidence suggesting racism where none exists is even lower. That's what you're doing.

Anyway, you're in bed with shira, and that says everything.

Guilty because someone else on the forum I no likee! Seriously, won't you even pretend to care about the truth? I spent a long time typing in all that laughing at your pathetic attempts to fool everyone by using grammatical quirks and some crazy definition game that you seemed to think meant that Jews could buy land. I typed that in on my phone, dude!

Look, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but you were trying to fool us and I caught you. That's life. It's embarrassing I'm sure. But now you have a choice. You can admit you were dishonest and tried to pull a fast one using very silly techniques. Or, worse in my view, admit that you were fooled by someone else using the same sad, remedial games.

I think I know which you'll pick! Any guesses?

[delrem]

21. OK. I accept that is your best response. nt

[Shaktimaan]

24. Which one?

The one where I methodically dismantled every one of your ridiculous arguments?

Or the one where I made fun if you for freaking out after reading the first one?

I think both are my best.

[delrem]

27. Yes, I think both are as a piece and as it were "define your voice".

But they fall in line with everything else you post, and that isn't necessarily a good thing.

[pelsar]

18. delrem...our version of the "truther"

do you know how many variations there are on the 9/11 towers? lots...(I never really counted). We see the same thing with israel, the" racist apartheid state". How many different variations, different angles are used with their attempts to prove that israel is racist/theocratic/apartheid society to the core?

sometimes their reasons are simplistic (immigration laws), sometimes their more sophisticated, but i've noticed they all have one thing in common...the poster himself is usually the racist.

In their attempts they have to put a different standard for israel that we find in the rest of the world, that Israel for reasons unclear, has to have a better record, better laws, better citizens than we find in Canada, the US, Austraila etc,

usually as in the poster here, the reason starts at the foundation belief, that israels birth is due to religious zionism, which by definition must be racist. Since that is that base, it follows that the state itself must also be racists as well hence the unending search....

its a belief....just as in an truther, birther.......they'll find little bits of info here and there to satisfy their belief, and even take in a few suckers...but thats about it

[delrem]

20. Israel's basic laws and high court decisions aren't "birtherism". sheee - the stretching...

[Shaktimaan]

23. OHMYGOD.

Stop. Please.
It's too much. Oh my god.

Shit you think anyone here is still going to listen to you, don't you? You're the worst liar ever! Oh my god you suck at this!

I'm sorry. It's too funny!

[delrem]

26. Hey! Just yesterday I got a post censored for telling oberliner to "Fuck off".

Yet I followed that expletive up with a few sentences of communication. And I do communicate with oberliner.

But your interjection has no redeeming value.

[Shaktimaan]

22. But did you see??!

Go back and look, it's hysterical. Those cheap tricks were actually meant to CONVINCE people of something!

My favorite is the one where she calls the immigration people mean because they followed up on a guy who admitted lying. OHMYGOD. I have tears.

[Shaktimaan]

25. Wow.

Ok I'm done for the night. That was too funny. Night.

[King_David]

28. Yep

I think you've done a pretty good job here of decimating Delrem's "argument".
And what's most impressive is that you did it all on a cell phone.

[delrem]

44. Perhaps a problem that Bassiouni isn't giving sufficient "juice" to...

is the problem that the land of Palestine did indeed have an indigenous population, having measured interaction with each other, before the Zionists won a war and confiscated a shitload of land for the Jewish State of Israel. Trademark.

[elleng]

45. I think there's plenty of 'juice' expressed here.

'the conflict can be summed up in the following formulation: two groups of people—related by race, ancestry, belief, and culture—find themselves competing over the same territory and are driven by different nationalistic and religious goals.

For those on both sides who are willing to share the land and accept the concept of two states living in peace with each other, conflict is not inevitable.'

[delrem]

46. That is very beatific.

But there's an intrinsic contradiction.
Israel is not into "sharing the land". That's a fact.
Israel isn't even willing to admit the existence of a Palestinian people, except for those Palestinian Jews who got caught up in the Zionist frenzy and are rarely, but so fucking rarely, listened to.

[elleng]

49. Professor Bassiouni recognized the problems,

and said:

'For those on both sides who are willing to share the land and accept the concept of two states living in peace with each other, conflict is not inevitable.'

Beatific???

[shira]

48. Jews are also indigenous to the land. Repeat it after me....

And the "Zionists" have been willing to share the land, agreeing to the 1947 Partition Plan that would have allotted close to 90% of historic Palestine to the Arabs.

The Clinton Initiatives of 2001 and Olmert Plan of 2008 would have allowed for both a Jewish and Palestinian state. The Arabs of the region would still retain about 80% of historic pre- 1920's Palestine.